APPENDIX A 

Air Quaility Calculations 





APPENDIX B 

Noise and Vibration Discipline Report 
Appendix B. Noise and Vibration Criteria and Analyses

The noise and vibration limits chosen for construction and operation of the Proposed Action Alternative

satisfy the federal guidelines of the FTA1 for train and rail facility operations.  Although this project is

being supported by the FRA and FRA has its own noise and vibration assessment guidelines2

, those

guidelines are relevant only to high‐speed trains (defined as traveling at speeds greater than 90 miles

per hour).  While the trains in this project travel at speeds averaging 10 miles per hour, the FRA

guidelines state that the FTA guidelines should be used for the analysis of conventional train operations

traveling at speeds less than 90 miles per hour.

B.1 Methods for Evaluation of Impacts

The analysis of noise and vibration impacts used design information for the proposed alignment of the

Proposed Action Alternative and regional rail and traffic data. The FTA Guidance Manual provides

guidelines for establishing the extent of the study area to be used for the noise and vibration impact

analyses. It also provides guidance for identifying noise‐ and vibration‐sensitive locations where

increased annoyance can occur from train pass‐bys. The methodology followed by the noise and

vibration analysts is described below.

Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receptors

The noise‐ and vibration‐sensitive receptors for the analysis of all alternatives considered within this

environmental assessment, including the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative,

include relevant receptors that are defined by FTA criteria.  The number of receptors potentially

impacted have been determined using FTA’s general assessment guidelines, including comparing

existing with future noise levels and rating impacts.  The vibration impact assessment uses the FTA

general assessment procedure of determining if absolute vibration limits will exceed specified

thresholds at vibration‐sensitive receptors.

Operations Noise

The descriptors and criteria for assessing noise impacts vary according to land use categories adjacent to

the track.  For land uses where people live and sleep (e.g., residential neighborhoods, hospitals, and

hotels), Ldn is the assessment parameter.  Ldn is the day‐night average level, which is the energy‐averaged

sound level for a continuous 24‐hour period with 10 dBA added to all levels occurring between 10 PM

and 7 AM (to account for the added sensitivity to sounds during normal sleeping hours). For other land‐

use types where there are noise sensitive uses (e.g., outdoor concert areas, schools, and libraries), the

equivalent (energy‐averaged) noise level for an hour of noise sensitivity (Leq[h]) that coincides with train

activity is the assessment parameter.  Table B‐1 summarizes the three land use categories.

The noise impact criteria used by the FTA are ambient‐based; the increase in future noise (future noise

levels with the Proposed Action Alternative added to existing noise levels) is assessed rather than the

noise caused by each passing train.  The criteria specify a consideration of future project noise with

                                                           

1 FTA. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA‐VA‐90‐1003‐06, May 2006.

2 FRA. High‐Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number

DOT/FRA/ORD‐12/15, September 2012.
existing levels because this analysis with an existing condition considers annoyance due to the change in

the noise environment caused by the Proposed Action Alternative.  Figure B‐1 shows the FTA noise

impact criteria for human annoyance.  Depending on the magnitude of the cumulative noise increases,

FTA categorizes impacts as (1) no impact; (2) moderate impact; or (3) severe impact.  Severe impact is

where a significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the project’s noise.  Moderate

impact is where the change in cumulative noise level would be noticeable to most people, but may not

be sufficient to generate strong, adverse reactions.

Table B‐1

FTA Noise‐Sensitive Land Uses

Land Use

Category

Noise Metric,

dBA

Land Use Category

1 Outdoor	Leq[h] (a) Tracts	of	land	where	quiet	is an	essential	element	in	their	

intended	purpose.	This	category	includes	lands	set	aside	for	

serenity	and	quiet,	such	as	outdoor	amphitheaters,	concert	

pavilions,	and	national	historic	landmarks	with	significant	

outdoor	use.

2 Outdoor	Ldn Residences	and	buildings	where	people	normally	sleep.	This	

category	includes	homes	and	hospitals,	where	nighttime	

sensitivity	to	noise	is	of	utmost	importance.

3 Outdoor	Leq[h] (a) Institutional	land	uses	with	primarily	daytime	and	evening	

use.	This	category	includes	schools,	libraries,	and	churches,	

where	it	is	important	to	avoid	interference	with	such	activities	

as	speech,	meditation,	and	concentration.	Buildings	with	

interior	spaces	where	quiet	is	important,	such	as	medical	

offices,	conference	rooms,	recording	studios,	and	concert	halls

fall	into	this	category,	as	well	as	places	for	meditation	or	study	

associated	with	cemeteries,	monuments,	and	museums.	

Certain	historical	sites,	parks,	and	recreational	facilities	are	

also	included.

Source: FTA 2006

(a) Leq for the noisiest hour of train‐related activity during hours of noise sensitivity.
Source: FTA 2006

F

FTA Nois

igure B‐1

se Impact Criteria
The following assumptions and methodologies were used to establish existing train noise levels at the

alignment of the Proposed Action Alternative for consideration of all alternatives, including the No

Action Alternative:

 Freight Train Noise – Calculations based on the FTA Guidance Manual for train operations

including warning horns, and the following assumptions, with the freight operation condition

based on current year (2013) operations:

o Operations – 1 through‐freight train per day, occurring during daytime hours.

o Speeds – 10 mph average.

o Length – 1 locomotive per train; length of each locomotive at 89 feet; length of each

freight car at 79 feet; total of 10 cars per train.

o Horns – 220 feet from each crossing affected by warning horns.

 Freight Train Crossing Signal Noise – The crossing signal noise would be more than 10 dBA less

than the warning horn noise at the same receiver.  According to the FTA guidelines, horns

generate sound exposure levels of 110 dBA at 50 feet while a 2‐minute crossing signal generates

a sound exposure level of 94 dBA at 50 feet.  However, the crossing signal noise was considered

and included in the existing noise calculation.

In addition to the foregoing, the following assumptions were used for the operational noise assessment

for the new future freight train service, based on the design characteristics of the Proposed Action

Alternative:

 New Freight Train Noise – Calculations based on the FTA Guidance Manual for train operations

including warning horns, and the following assumptions:

o Operations – 1 through freight train per day, occurring day or night (assumed at night

for worst case noise scenario).

o Speeds – 10 mph average.

o Length – 3 locomotives per train; length of each locomotive at 75 feet; length of each

freight car at 50 feet; total of 110 cars per train.

o Horns – 220 feet from each grade‐crossing affected by warning horns.

 Crossing Signal Noise – For the reasons referenced above, the crossing signal noise would be

significantly less than warning horn noise, but it was still included the noise calculations.

Further, it was assumed that the rail track will be a combination of ballast and slab track with

continuous welded rail, consistent with the assumptions in the FTA Guidance Manual and that

there will be no change to the location of any of the existing at‐grade crossings and, therefore,

no change to locations where the freight trains will sound their horns.

Operations Vibration

Ground‐borne vibration impacts from new rail operations inside vibration‐sensitive buildings are defined

by the vibration velocity level, expressed in terms of VdB, and the number of vibration events per day of

the same kind of source.  Table B‐2 summarizes vibration sensitivity in terms of the three FTA land use

categories and the criteria for acceptable ground‐borne vibrations and acceptable ground‐borne noise.

Ground‐borne noise is a low‐frequency rumbling sound inside buildings, caused by vibrations of floors,

walls, and ceilings. Ground‐borne noise is generally not a problem for buildings near railroad tracks at‐ 

or above‐grade, because the airborne noise from trains typically overshadows the effects of ground‐
borne noise.  Ground‐borne noise becomes an issue in cases where airborne noise cannot be heard,

such as for buildings near tunnels.

The FTA provides guidelines to assess the human response to different levels of ground‐borne vibration,

as shown in Table B‐2. These levels represent the maximum vibration level of an individual train passby.  

A vibration event occurs each time a train passes the building or property and causes discernible

vibration. “Frequent Events” are more than 70 vibration events per day, and “Infrequent Events” are

fewer than 70 vibration events per day.  

Table B‐2 includes separate FTA criteria for ground‐borne noise (the "rumble" that radiates from the

motion of room surfaces in buildings from ground‐borne vibration).  Although the criteria are expressed

in dBA, which emphasizes the more audible middle and high frequencies, the criteria are significantly

lower than airborne noise criteria to account for the annoying low‐frequency character of ground‐borne

noise.  

Table B‐2

FTA Ground‐Borne Vibration and Ground‐Borne Noise Operations Impact Criteria

Land Use Category Ground‐Borne Vibration

Impact Criteria

(VdB relative to 1 micro

inch/second)

Ground‐Borne Noise Impact

Criteria

(dB re 20 microPascals)

Frequent

Events (a)

Infrequent

Events (b)

Frequent

Events (a)

Infrequent

Events (b)

Category 1: Buildings where

vibration would interfere with

interior operations

65 VdB(c) 65 VdB(c) NA(d) NA(d)

Category 2: Residences and

buildings where people normally

sleep

72 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 43 dBA

Category 3: Institutional land uses

with primarily daytime use

75 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 48 dBA

Source: FTA 2006

(a) Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day.

(b) Infrequent Events is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day.

(c) This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical microscopes.

Vibration‐sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring

lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems, and

stiffened floors.

(d) Vibration‐sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground‐borne noise.

NA = Not Applicable

VdB = vibration velocity level

Because airborne noise often masks ground‐borne noise for above ground (i.e., at‐grade or viaduct)

trains, ground‐borne noise criteria apply primarily to operations in a tunnel, where airborne noise is not

a factor.  The Proposed Action Alternative passing residential communities is planned to be at‐grade

only.  As a result, ground‐borne noise criteria are not expected to be issues for this Proposed Action

Alternative.  Further, for this Proposed Action Alternative, the impact criteria are based on “Infrequent

Events” since they would not exceed 70 train events per day.  

Analysts tabulated projected noise and existing ambient noise exposures at the identified receptors or

clusters of receptors. The analysts determined the levels of impact (no impact, moderate impact, or
severe impact) by comparing the existing and projected noise exposure based on the impact criteria

shown in Figure B‐1.

Traffic Noise

The Proposed Action Alternative will involve traffic increases to local roads but none of this will occur

within 1,000 feet of residential properties.  Therefore, traffic noise analyses were not performed for this

project as no related impacts are expected.

Construction Noise

Table B‐3 shows the FTA general assessment criteria for construction noise. The general assessment

criteria for construction noise prescribe different levels for daytime and nighttime construction. Daytime

is defined as 7 AM to 10 PM and nighttime is defined as 10 PM to 7 AM. For the purpose of this analysis,

construction noise impacts and distances to the 90 dBA and 80 dBA 1‐hour Leq noise contours were

calculated for construction activities to upgrade the rail line near residential communities. The

construction noise limits are normally assessed at the noise‐sensitive receiver property line.

Table B‐3

General Assessment Criteria for Construction Noise

Land Use One‐Hour Leq (dBA)

Daytime Nighttime

Residential 90 80

Commercial 100 100

Industrial 100 100

Source: FTA 2006

Leq equivalent sound level

The construction noise impact assessment used the general assessment methodology described in the

FTA Guidance Manual.  For this analysis, construction activities for the rail corridor are based on general

assumptions for railroad construction.  The construction noise methodology includes the following:

 Noise emissions from equipment expected to be used by contractors for corridor construction.

 Typical railroad construction equipment expected to be used by contractors.

 Two noisiest pieces of construction equipment per construction phase for corridor construction.  

 Relationship of the construction operations to nearby noise‐sensitive receptors.

Table B‐3 above lists FTA criteria for the maximum acceptable 1‐hour noise levels (Leq) for daytime and

nighttime.  

Construction Vibration

The FTA Guidance Manual provides the basis for the construction vibration assessment.

FTA provides construction vibration criteria designed primarily to prevent building damage, and to

assess whether vibration might interfere with vibration‐sensitive building activities or temporarily annoy

building occupants during the construction period. The FTA criteria include two ways to express

vibration levels – (1) root‐mean‐square (RMS) VdB for annoyance and activity interference; and (2) peak

particle velocity (PPV), which is the maximum instantaneous peak of a vibration signal used for

assessments of damage potential.
Table B‐4 shows the FTA building damage criteria for construction activity; the table lists PPV limits for

four building categories. These limits are used to estimate potential problems that should be addressed

during final design.

Table B‐4

Construction Vibration Damage Criteria

Building Category PPV (inch/sec) Approximate Lv

(VdB)

I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102

II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98

III. Non‐engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94

IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration

damage

0.12 90

Source: FTA 2006

The FTA Guidance Manual provides the methodology for the assessment of construction vibration

impact. Typical construction equipment included in the FTA Guidance Manual was used to conduct a

quantitative construction vibration assessment where vibration‐sensitive receptors were within the

study area. Criteria for annoyance (see Table B‐3) and damage (see Table B‐4) were applied to

determine construction vibration impacts.  

B.2 Affected Environment

The affected environment follows the Proposed Action Alternative IRPLP area west of the Mississippi

River through the City of West Memphis.  This region is mostly industrial, but there are two residential

areas within 500 feet of the rail line in the northernmost section of the project. These areas are

generally lightly populated and considered to be industrial/suburban.  

Existing Noise Levels

The entire corridor for the Proposed Action Alternative can be considered to be a industrial with

isolated residential, as well as the existence of a freight rail line within the corridor.  Because there is an

existing freight rail line along the entire corridor within which the Proposed Action Alternative would be

located and trains pass the residential areas very infrequently, the existing noise levels were calculated

based on the methods in the FTA Guidance Manual for the train noise in addition to measuring existing

noise levels for non‐train activities along the proposed alignment of the Proposed Action Alternative.  

This approach is more practical than monitoring noise levels alone at a limited number of locations

because of the infrequent nature of existing rail activities.  The freight train noise with warning horns

calculation was based on reference values in the FTA Guidance Manual with the train operational

assumptions above.  

In general, freight trains would generate 57 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the rail tracks without horns.  The

noise level would drop off at a rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance, per the FTA Guidance Manual.

The warning horn noise level would be 62 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the rail centerline within 220 feet of

each grade crossing.  

Warning horns would be the dominant noise sources when receptors are near grade crossings. When

receptors are not near grade crossings, the dominant noise sources would be passing freight trains or

vehicular traffic.
URS monitored background noise levels on May 20, 2013 at two representative locations near the

project site and near the closest residential properties – one near the northeast project site boundary

and one near the northwest project site boundary – to document the background sound levels in the

area.  Each of these locations provides background sound levels representative of the closest residential

communities to the north of the project site.  There are no other noise‐sensitive locations within 1000

feet of the project.

The weather conditions during the entire monitoring period were favorable for the sound level

measurements, with no precipitation, light winds (less than 10 miles per hour), and temperatures in the

mid‐70s to mid‐80s in degrees Fahrenheit.  The sound monitor was a Larson Davis Model 820 Type 1 (re

ANSI S1.4‐1983) sound level meter (serial number 1655), field‐calibrated before and after the session

with a Larson Davis Model CAL200 calibrator (serial number 3704).  All instruments had been factory‐

calibrated within 12 months of their use.  All measurement procedures were in accordance with

standard industry‐accepted practices.

Sound level monitoring was conducted at locations M‐1 and M‐2, shown in Figure 1 in the

environmental assessment. The measurements were used for this analysis to represent background

conditions at the closest residential receptors to the project, on the north side of the project area.  

Noise sources at M‐1 included automobile traffic in the forms of motorcycles, automobiles, medium and

heavy trucks. The City of West Memphis maintains a firing range southwest of M‐1. The firing range was

observed to be in use during visits to the site. Dabbs Avenue becomes Port Road directly east of M‐1 and

crosses the railroad at‐grade, where there is a rail grade crossing. Port Road serves the industrial area

south of M‐1 and maintains a steady traffic flow of medium and heavy trucks and lighter automobiles.  

Noise sources at M‐2 included current rail activity occurring at this and neighboring locations and heavy

truck traffic occurring at other parts of the Staplecotn grounds. The site is somewhat isolated from the

surrounding community and was observed to be relatively quiet when rail activities were not occurring.

Measurements were taken in 25‐ to 30‐minute intervals during the daytime and evening hours.  Leq

values averaged 58.5 dBA at M‐1 and 54.5 dBA at M‐2.

Existing Vibration Levels

Unlike the FTA noise impact assessment method, train‐related vibration impact thresholds are not

dependent upon existing ground‐borne vibration levels, so the documentation of existing ground‐borne

vibration levels is not an issue as it is for noise levels.

As a reference, the existing freight train would generate 60 VdB at 50 feet when it is operated at 10

mph. This reference is based on the methodology described in the FTA Guidance Manual.

   
B.3 Environmental Consequences

Operations Noise Impacts

Noise impacts would not result from the No‐Action Alternative since there will be no change to current

rail activities expected without the proposed project.

For the Proposed Action Alternative, analysts assessed noise impacts for noise sensitive land uses based

on a consideration of existing (2013) noise levels as calculated (for trains) per the FTA Guidance Manual

combined with measured ambient levels without trains.  The FTA Manual requires that impacts are

considered based on the cumulative analysis of existing noise levels together with the future project‐

generated levels resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, as shown in

Figure B‐1.

The FRA’s horn rule, 49 CFR Part 222, requires trains to sound their horns at least 15 seconds prior to

passing a grade crossing.  Since the existing and future trains travel at average speeds of 10 miles per

hour, 15 seconds corresponds with 220 feet from the grade crossing.  Combining measured current

sound levels with current and future train operations results in severe noise impacts predicted for the

two closest houses to the Port Road grade crossing.  Although only one new train operation is being

added with the project, assuming that operation occurs at night generates the impacts.

Operations Vibration Impacts

A vibration impact general assessment was conducted based on information in the FTA Guidance

Manual.  The factors considered in a general assessment include train speed, train‐set, track

system/support, track structure, propagation characteristics, coupling‐to‐building foundation, and type

of building/receiver location in a building.  

For the existing conditions and operation of the Proposed Action Alternative, none of the residential

buildings in the study area would experience levels exceeding the FTA limits of 80 VdB for ground borne

vibration and 43 dBA for ground borne noise (see Table B‐2). Therefore, none of the alternatives

considered within this EA, including the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative, would

be expected to result in operational vibration impacts.  

Construction Noise Impacts

Based on the construction noise impact criteria described in Table B‐3, the threshold noise levels would

be 90 dBA Leq for daytime hours (7 AM to 10 PM) and 80 dBA Leq for nighttime hours (10 PM to 7 AM).  

Noise sensitive receptors within 40 feet of construction activities would be potentially impacted during

daytime hours and those within 126 feet would be potentially impacted during nighttime hours.  This is

based on the FTA Manual assumption of the two loudest pieces of equipment operating full time and

simultaneously.  These pieces of equipment (a tie inserter and dozer) each generate 85 dBA at 50 feet

according to the FTA Manual, and their combination would result in 88 dBA at 50 feet.

Since construction activities would only occur during daytime hours and no houses are closer than 40

feet to the rail line, no construction noise impacts are expected with the Proposed Action Alternative.  

Construction Vibration Impacts

Construction‐related vibration impacts would only be considered if pile driving or blasting were planned

near the residential communities. Since this is not the case, no construction‐related vibration impacts

are expected for this project.
B.4 Mitigation Measures

FTA guidance requires the consideration of mitigation measures for certain severe impacts.  The

following mitigation measures will be followed to address impacts that cannot be minimized or avoided

by other means.   

Operations Noise Mitigation Measures. Nighttime warning horns on the trains have been calculated to

generate impacts resulting from the Proposed Action Alternative.  The following mitigation measures,

individually, would eliminate these impacts:

 Institute a quiet zone (in accordance with 49 CFR Part 222) to prohibit the sounding of horns

with respect to the grade crossing at Port Road

 Limit new train operations to only daytime hours

 Provide noise barriers between the rail line and impacted residences

 Provide sound insulation (in the form of upgraded windows and doors) for the impacted

residences

Of these measures, noise barriers would most likely not be a practical mitigation option because their

noise reduction effectiveness would be compromised by the required opening at the Port Road grade

crossing for vehicle access.

B.5 Summary of Potential Project Impacts

Operations Noise Impacts

With the Proposed Action Alternative, 2 severe noise impacts are identified in this EA pursuant to the

FTA guidelines because of the proposed nighttime horn soundings near the Port Road grade crossing.   

With the institution of either a quiet zone for the Port Road grade crossing, limiting train operations

near Port Road to daytime hours, or providing sound insulation upgrades to the impacted residences,

there would be no noise severe impacts resulting from the operations of the Proposed Action

Alternative.  

Operations Vibration Impacts

No vibration‐related impacts are anticipated with the Proposed Action Alternative.  

Construction Noise Impacts

No noise impacts will result from construction of the Proposed Action Alternative.  

Construction Vibration Impacts

Since no pile driving or blasting will be occurring for the construction of the Proposed Action

Alternative, there are no significant vibration impacts expected from construction of the Proposed

Action Alternative.
APPENDIX C 

Ecological Discipline Report 
West Memphis, Arkansas 

PROJECT: International Rail Port and Logistics Park (IRPLP) 

ECOLOGY REPORT 

Prepared By: (James R. Orr and Peter Zervas, URS Corporation) 

October 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION PAGE 

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 1

3. PROJECT SETTING ............................................................................................................ 1

4. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY ............................................................................................... 2

4.1 Existing Rail Area .......................................................................................................... 2

4.2 Proposed Rail Extension and Transload Area ............................................................ 3

5. TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 4

6. WETLANDS AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY ....................................................................... 4

7. 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ................................................................................................... 5

8. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES ............................................................ 5

9. REQUIRED PERMITS ........................................................................................................ 6

10. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 7

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Site Location Map 

Figure 2. Proposed Project Concept Map 

Figure 3. NRCS Soils Map – Northern Portion 

Figure 4. NRCS Soils Map – Southern Portion 

Figure 5. Delineated Features – Site Overview Map 

Figure 6. Delineated Features – Northern Portion Map 

Figure 7. Delineated Features – Southern Portion Map 

Figure 8. National Wetlands Inventory Map 

Figure 9. 100-Year Floodplain Map 

APPENDICIES

Appendix A. Coordination Response Letters 

Appendix B. Photographic Log 

Appendix C. Field Data Forms 

Appendix D. Wetland Mitigation Plan – Ensafe Inc.
1. INTRODUCTION

Studies to determine the impacts of the proposed IRPLP on the local ecology were conducted by 

a team of biologists from URS Corporation during May - August, 2013. Studies included 

historical literature reviews, database inquiries and site surveys. Particular attention was given to 

locating streams, wetlands and specialized habitats such as forests, shoreline and springs which 

could harbor protected species or influence water quality. According to coordination letters with 

the AGFC and USFWS, mussel and bird species, primarily associated with the Mississippi River, 

were of particular interest in the area of the project.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The project concept is proposed to extend the Union Pacific Railroad spur from the West 

Memphis Industrial Park south to a new proposed transload facility located south of Wyanoke 

(Figure 1). The improvements in this Project include the upgrade of existing track in the 

International Rail Port Logistics Park (IRPLP) in West Memphis, Arkansas, to support the 

handling of heavier rail carloads of manifest and unit trains to the Port and the construction of a 

new rail lead to the base of the St. Francis levee. These improvements will facilitate the 

connection to the proposed construction of a new transload facility on private lands on the west 

side of the St. Francis Levee, west of the Port of West Memphis, through an agreement with the 

City of West Memphis and a private developer; these improvements will add the capability for 

the handling of bulk commodities from truck and rail to the Mississippi River navigational 

transportation system. 

3. PROJECT SETTING

The proposed project is located in central Crittendon County, Arkansas. It is shown on the West 

Memphis USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2). This portion of the county is 

within the Mississippi Valley physiographic unit. The regional geology of the surrounding land 

consists of a wide, flat historic floodplain of the Mississippi River Soils in the project area 

consist of several types. However, two primary soil types are dominant as described on the 

USDA General Soil Map for Crittendon County, 2007: 1) Tunica clay 0 – 1 percent slopes, and 

2) Sharkey silt clay, 0 – 1 percent slopes (Figures 3 and 4). The project lies exclusively with the 

Mississippi River watershed. Land use in the project area consists primarily of agricultural with 

commercial, residential and industrial property located on the south side of West Memphis and 

within the Industrial Park. Residential and commercial land is found to the north of the project, 

with industrial property within the project area. Agricultural property occupies the land use to 

the south and to the west. 

 
4. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY 

Most of the land in the project area has been previously disturbed, primarily for agricultural use 

and in some areas by industrial, commercial and residential development. Most of the land is 

currently in agricultural use with some of the land forested, in vegetated drainages or in 

shrub/scrub thickets. There are also wetland areas located adjacent to and on the south and west 

sides of the project area. Fletcher Lake located to the south of the project area consists of a large 

body of open water, emergent wetlands and forested wetlands (W-5). The project will include 

building in this wetland area and culverting over Ditch 19 which flows into Fletcher Lake. A 

forested wetland area is also located to the west of the existing railway, south of the Riverbend 

Cotton Facility and borders the existing rail infrastructure (W-1). The proposed rail extension is 

planned to bisect this small forested wetland. Wetland 2 (W-2) is an isolated wetland located 

adjacent to Port Road. This area appears to be a borrow area. The depression left from borrow 

practice now holds water periodically and wetland vegetation (black willow trees; Salix nigra). 

Smaller wetlands are located south of the project area adjacent to the toe to the levee. In 

addition, excavated ditches historically used to drain land for agricultural use direct stormwater 

runoff to the south and west. A limited number of small ponds, some formed from weep water 

through the levee during high flow in the Mississippi River are located south of the project and 

adjacent to the levee (Figure 5). 

4.1 Existing Rail Area 

This existing rail area is a mix of residential and commercial property. The existing rail travels 

west past the West Memphis wastewater treatment plant, oil storage terminal and the West 

Memphis stormwater lagoon before turning south to provide rail service to three facilities in the 

Industrial Park. The rail extends south to Stateside Steel and Wire, LLC, and Tetra Technologies 

Inc. The rail is bordered by agricultural fields planted in wheat on the east and a forested area 

(part wetland and part upland; W-1) and agricultural fields on the west. The vegetation in the 

area includes agricultural crops, primarily wheat and corn, and the forested area. Tree species 

include willow oak (Quercus phellos), pin oak (Q.palustris), black walnut (Juglans nigra), sweet 

gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), southern red oak (Q. falcata), cottonwood (Populus deltoids), 

hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus americana), red maple (Acer rubrum) and 

pecan (Carya illinoinensis). Shrubs and smaller trees included rough-leaf dogwood (Coruns 

drummondii), black willow (S. nigra), box elder (Acer negundo), elderberry (Sambucus 

canadensis), pawpaw (Asimina triloba) and smooth sumac (Rhus glabra). The ecology of the 

area was limited primarily to bird species, with red-winged black bird and meadow lark most 

common. In addition, dickcissel, barn swallow, crow, starling, mourning dove, cardinal and 

loggerhead shrike were observed. Within the forested wetlands a number of mammal tracks 

were observed including deer, opossum, rabbit, raccoon, with reptiles and amphibians common 

particularly in wet areas. 
4.2 Proposed Rail Extension and Transload Area

This section is primarily agricultural and includes two farm steads. This includes the levee south 

of Wyanoke which is used as pasture for cattle. The area is either pasture land or agricultural 

fields. A great deal of rain had fallen preceding the May field efforts and standing water was 

observed in the fields. In addition, the Mississippi River was markedly high (elevation 217.6 ft 

msl) and water levels were higher than the land elevation on the west side of the levee (210 ft 

msl). Between the agricultural fields and pastures were some fence rows and an access road. 

Trees in the fence rows were generally limited to hackberry, pecan, cottonwood and persimmon 

(Diaspyros virginiana). To the west of the agricultural fields is Fletcher Lake (Wetland 5). 

Fletcher Lake lies in the southwest portion of the Project area, and will be crossed along the 

north end by a rail loop in support of the transload facility. In addition to the agricultural fields 

and pasture land, five wetland areas and as well as a number of ponds and weeps/seeps were 

delineated, (Figures 5, 6 and 7). In addition, one forested wetland, indicated on the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map is depicted on Figure 8 south and 

west of Fletcher Lake. All weeps appeared to be hydrologically connected to the Mississippi 

River through the levee during high water events. Two of the weeps were small (approximately 

1⁄4 acre) and were also in use as livestock watering ponds. Both were constructed at the toe of the 

levee with berms on the west and side walls on the north and south. Total water depth was 

approximately three feet. Both were inundated at the time of the May, 2013 field survey. 

The third weep (Wetland 3; W-3) was relatively larger, approximately six acres, and was not 

constructed at the toe of the levee; it was located in an agricultural field just west of the toe of the 

levee (Figures 5 and 7). Wetland 3 was reported by locals to be a depression in the agricultural 

fields where weep water could accumulate during higher water events in the Mississippi River. 

The area is depicted as a depression in the USGS topographic map (Figure 2). Local farming 

practice included tree clearing and stacking around the boundary of the area, resulting in 

additional berm. Substrate in the seep included native soil, but an abundance of river gravel 

indicated that this area was an historic over-flow channel of the Mississippi River prior to 

construction of the levee. The seep area drained to the northwest via an excavated ditch. Flow 

from the ditch was directed overland toward Fletcher Lake. The ditch included standing water at 

the time of inspection, but no outlet flow. Vegetation in the Wetland 3 included a border of 

woody vegetation with hackberry, pecan and cottonwood on the east and south, and roughleaf 

dogwood on the north and west. Within the roughleaf dogwood, which also formed a fringe 

inside the trees on the east and south, was an abundance of poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), 

trumper creeper (Campsis radicans) and blackberry (Rubus spp.). The center of Wetland 3 was 

open and included a few isolated trees – hackberry and persimmon. The majority of the area was 

vegetated with herbaceous growth including oats grass (Bouteloua spp.), buttercups (Ranunculus

spp.), golden rod (Solidago spp.), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum) and bermuda grass 

(Cynodon dactylon). Wetland 4 (W-4) is a small depression potentially formed from another 

levee weep (Figures 5 and 7). Wetland 4 is less than 1⁄4 acre and is south of the project impact 

area. 

The ecology of this area was similar to the existing rail area; however, a greater diversity of birds 

were observed. Waterfowl – mallard ducks, Canada geese and other species were observed 

using the flooded agricultural fields and ditches. Wading birds were also present, with great 
egrets, sandpipers and great blue herons common. Other bird species observed included those 

mentioned above, but also included black vulture, turkey vulture, marsh hawk, mocking bird, 

song sparrow and indigo bunting. This type of area provides habitat for a more diverse 

assemblage of wildlife, including small and medium mammals, reptiles, amphibians and the 

predatory animals that feed on them, such as hawks, owls, coyote and foxes. 

5. TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS

Direct impacts: The loss of approximately 15.0 acres of land for new rail (13,000 ft x 50 ft) and 

5.0 acre of land for the transload facility is one of the impacts of the project. In addition, the City 

of West Memphis proposes to develop a 20-acre tract along Port Road adjacent to current 

industrial users. All of this land is currently agricultural land – either crop land or pasture. 

There will be direct, long-term adverse impacts when agricultural areas are converted to railway 

and industrial facility. However, this impact will be limited as this habitat has limited value for 

wildlife and is adjacent to existing commercial and industrial land use. Other agricultural land in 

the area is abundant and the land that will be lost does not have substantial connectivity to other 

habitat. Mortality of individual wildlife may occur both during construction and operation. 

Roadway mortality is generally not believed to significantly affect animal populations under 

normal conditions, particularly with the slow train speed (approximately 10 mph). If the 

population is experiencing other sources of stress, habitat degradation or elimination, then 

traffic-related mortality can contribute to the demise of the population. Both rail and truck traffic 

will generally be slow in the Project area, and wildlife will be able to avoid impact far more 

effectively compared to highway or open rail traffic. Highway noise can affect the utilization of 

habitats by wildlife. Since this is an urban and agricultural project and is located adjacent to 

existing railway, roadway and commercial activity, noise is already a factor within existing 

habitats. After project construction, areas that remain undisturbed within rail and road rights of 

way, will, over time, provide some degree of refuge for local wildlife as the surrounding areas 

continue to urbanize and habitats are destroyed. The railway is currently proposed to be bridged 

over Ditch 19, 17 and other tributaries as needed. The substantial elevation of the bridges over 

the water will allow wildlife to pass relatively undisturbed under the bridge along these ditches 

as was observed with waterfowl and reptiles during the May, 2013 survey.

6. WETLANDS and AQUATIC ECOLOGY 

Wetands delineations were conducted by URS in June 2013 and Ensafe July 2013. Two 

wetlands will be impacted by the project, W-1 and W-5. The project has been located, and the 

chosen alternative will be designed, to avoid major impacts to waters of the state to the extent 

practicable. Permanent and temporary impacts to wetlands are anticipated. 

The total acreage of wetlands that will be impacted by the project include: 
Permanent Acres Temporary Acres Total Acres

Forestland 3.27 7.97 11.24

Agricultural Land 3.21 6.22 9.43

Total 6.48 14.19 20.67

Temporary impacts include a 50 foot “buffer” on each side of the project location for 

construction access, which will be allowed to revert to preexisting conditions once construction 

is completed for the project. 

Efforts to further minimize impacts will continue throughout the design, permitting and 

construction processes. Unavoidable impacts will be mitigated as required by applicable laws 

and regulations. Mitigation is discussed further in the Permit Sections applying to streams and 

wetlands. In an effort to minimize sedimentation impacts, erosion and sediment control plans 

will be included in the project construction plans. Erosion and sediment control standards for 

use during construction will be implemented. The State of Arkansas sets water quality criteria 

for waters of the state; these standards must be met during the construction of the railway, road 

and transload facility. 

Ditch 19, 17 and their tributaries are the only flowing water bodies affected by this project 

(Figures 5, 6 and 7). All aquatic impacts identified as project development continues will be 

avoided, minimized or mitigated to the extent possible, and incorporated into the permitting. 

7. 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

The alignment crosses the 100-year floodplain within Ditch 17 (Figure 9). The 100 year 

floodplain elevation is 208 amsl. The low point in the agricultural fields is approximately 210 

amsl. The floodplain is a forested bank habitat dominated by silver maple (Acer saccharinum), 

black willow and box elder in the overstory; bush roughleaf dogwood, poison ivy and trumpet 

creeper dominating the shrub layer; and annual weeds and grasses as ground cover. Agricultural 

crops are grown up to the banks of Ditch 17. The ecological impacts to the floodplain would be 

minimal as this area is primarily an engineered ditch and maintained by farming practices. No 

further fragmentation of habitat would occur, and it is unlikely that there would be a substantial 

increase in mortality associated with vehicular traffic. The bridge crossings will be designed to 

avoid impacts to flow with the ditch up to the 100 yr floodstage. 

8. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES

Information from several sources, as well as prior experience with habitats in the area, was used 

to prepare for field surveys to locate protected species or special habitats. These sources 

included database information provided by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service and books or databases of the region. The USFWS, AGFC and 
USACE were contacted for information from their files by letter, on April 29, 2013. All three 

agencies responded and indicated that no species of concern were likely to be impacted. 

Results of the US Fish and Wildlife Service coordination indicated that there are five species 

known within the region: interior least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon (Scaphyrinchus albus), 

pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) and fat pocketbook (Potamilis 

capax). In addition, they indicated bald eagles are known to occur in the region. The AGFC 

indicated that they no longer conduct reviews of Federally funded projects. The USACE 

indicated that they were unaware of threatened or endangered species in the Project area. 

Interior least tern is a federally endangered species known to nest and forage on the shoreline of 

large rivers such as the Mississippi. This habitat will not be affected by the project. No interior 

least terns were observed during the site visit of May 14-15, 2013. 

Piping plover is a federally endangered species due to loss of nesting habitat on sand beaches 

through recreational use. Piping plover may migrate through Arkansas, but nesting habitat is in 

Canada and winter habitat is on the Gulf Coast. Plovers were not observed during the site visit. 

Pallid sturgeon may occur in the Mississippi River. The project will not affect the Mississippi 

River. 

Pondberry is a federally endangered species and for the most part, is associated with wetland 

habitats, such as bottomland and hardwoods in the interior areas, and the margins of sinks, ponds 

and other depressions in the more coastal sites. The plants generally grow in shaded areas but 

may also be found in full sun. Pondberry was not observed in wetlands in or near the project 

area. 

Scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) and fat pocketbook (Potamilis capax) are federally endangered 

mussel species found in medium or large rivers. Scaleshell prefer swift clear water and may be 

extirpated from Crittendon County. The fat pocketbook prefers slower water and may be found 

in irrigation canals (Parmalee and Bogan 1998), but FWS confirmed that the Ditch 17 and 19 

habitat were not suitable habitat for fat pocketbook. 

Direct Impacts. No protected species records were shown within the likely direct impact zone of the 

project. 

Information received from the USFWS is periodically reviewed and updated. If any protected 

species or their habitats are identified as project development continues, they will be addressed 

in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

9. REQUIRED PERMITS

Stream and miscellaneous water quality permits: Alterations to streams or other aquatic sites 

designated as waters of the State or waters of the United States require 401 water quality 

certification from the State of Arkansas, individual or Nationwide 404 USACE permits. 
Construction projects disturbing one or more acres of land require storm water control permits 

issued by the State of Arkansas pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 

For any project that affects water flowing into an open sinkhole or cave, or for any impact that 

may affect the ground water via a sinkhole, a Class V Injection Well permit may be required. 

This process involves obtaining a permit before the project is let if open sinkholes are known to 

exist. These or any other permit requirements identified in the project development process will 

be complied with. A Section 404 general and individual permit from the Corps of Engineers and 

401 water quality certification from ADEQ are anticipated for this project. 

10. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Much of the land area adjacent to the Project area has been previously disturbed by construction 

of residential, industrial, and commercial areas, as well as agricultural use. Due to this, suitable 

habitat for many wildlife species is limited to small woodlots and tree lines separating properties 

and the narrow riparian zone along the ditches and tributaries. Construction of the proposed 

project will result in the loss of some habitat, but there will likely remain a sufficient amount of 

habitat in the adjacent areas to accommodate any displaced species. There will not likely be an 

increase of direct mortality due to road-kill; this is due to the fact that there are existing railways 

and roads in the area that are already heavily traveled and new rail and road traffic will be slow 

(10 MPH). This project is not likely to further fragment the habitat or serve as a barrier to the 

movement of wildlife species for the above reason as well, and there is little habitat east of the 

project area for connectivity due the height of the levee. 

Two streams, Ditch 17 and 19 (Figures 5, 6 and 7) were identified within the limits of the 

proposed project that will be crossed by new construction as well as other minor tributaries. 

Construction activities will not likely result in the loss of open channel length and canopy 

disturbance as a bridge currently exists. Sedimentation from storm runoff could also impact the 

stream to varying degrees. However, implementation and maintenance of effective erosion and 

sediment control measures throughout the construction process should keep the overall impacts 

to these aquatic resources to a minimum. 

Construction will result in minor short-term and long-term impacts to both terrestrial and aquatic 

habitats within the project limits. Disturbance of only the area within ROW needed for 

construction of the proposed project and implementation and maintenance of effective erosion 

and sediment control measures throughout the duration of the project will serve to minimize 

most of these impacts. The remaining impacts may be mitigated somewhat over time once 

project construction is complete. Wetland losses will be mitigated on-site.
Figures









Appendix A 

Coordination Response Letters









Appendix B 

Photographic Log











Appendix C 

Field Data Forms





















Appendix D 

Wetland Mitigation Plan 

EnSafe Inc, December 2013 
Truck/Rail to Barge Terminal, Louis Dreyfus Commodities, Inc. 

West Memphis, Arkansas 

Proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan, USACE 404 Permit 

Prepared by Ensafe 

December 2013

There are four jurisdictional wetlands that will be impacted by the proposed project. Two of these are forested 

(PF01A and PSS1A); the remaining two are located in agricultural fields. The U.S. Natural Resources 

Conservation Service has not conducted a wetland determination at this site for the purpose of implementing the 

Food Securities Act; therefore, these are not considered “prior converted croplands”. The total acreage of 

wetlands that will be impacted by the project include: 

Permanent Acres Temporary Acres Total Acres

Forestland 3.27 7.97 11.24

Agricultural Land 3.21 6.22 9.43

Total 6.48 14.19 20.67

Temporary impacts include a 50 foot “buffer” on each side of the project location for construction access, which 

will be allowed to revert to preexisting conditions once construction is completed for the project. 

The Charleston U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) District Standard Operating Procedure for 

determining required compensatory mitigation (Charleston Method, September 19, 2002 and Addendum) will 

be used during the Section 404 permitting process with the USACE Memphis District to determine the wetland 

impacts and to develop the required mitigation that will be required to offset the impacts that will occur during 

the project construction. This method is used in Arkansas to provide a basic framework that provides 

predictable and consistent evaluation of wetland impacts and the type and quantity of mitigation that will be 

required to offset those impacts. 

There are no available mitigation banks or credits available in the West Memphis area; therefore, mitigation for 

the project will be implemented onsite. The mitigation will involve enhancing or restoring farmed wetlands that 

have been modified due to ditching by re-establishing hydric forest species, and plugging agricultural drainage 

systems, if necessary. 

APPENDIX D 

ESA Section 7 Letters of Concurrence and 

USACE Wetland Coordination 






















From: Lisa LaRue-Baker - UKB THPO

To: Hager, Will

Cc: verna; eberry@unitedkeetoowahband.org

Subject: Re: Section 106 Review: International Rail Port Logistics Park, West Memphis Arkansas

Date: Friday, November 15, 2013 11:41:52 AM

Attachments: image001.gif

 The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma has reviewed your project

under Section 106 of the NHPA, and at this time, has no comments or objections. However,

if any human remains are inadvertently discovered, please cease all work and contact us

immediately.

Thank you,

Lisa C. Baker 

Acting THPO

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma

PO Box 746

Tahlequah, OK 74465

c 918.822.1952 

ukbthpo-larue@yahoo.com

Please FOLLOW our historic preservation page and LIKE us on

FACEBOOK

From: "Hager, Will" <will.hager@urs.com>

To: "jlambert@quapawtribe.com" <jlambert@quapawtribe.com> 

Cc: "aqttculture@yahoo.com" <aqttculture@yahoo.com>; "Richard-Allen@cherokee.org" <RichardAllen@cherokee.org>; "ladonna.brown@chickasaw.net" <ladonna.brown@chickasaw.net>;

"ithompson@chowtawnation.com" <ithompson@chowtawnation.com>; "danammasters@aol.com"

<danammasters@aol.com>; "jeremiah.hobia@kialegeetribe.net" <jeremiah.hobia@kialegeetribe.net>;

"KCarleton@choctaw.org" <KCarleton@choctaw.org>; "tisham@muscogeenation-nsn.gov"

<tisham@muscogeenation-nsn.gov>; "ahunter@osagetribe.org" <ahunter@osagetribe.org>;

"bcwelborn@sbcglobal.net" <bcwelborn@sbcglobal.net>; "UKBTHPO-larue@yahoo.com" <UKBTHPOlarue@yahoo.com>; "Orr, Jim" <jim.orr@urs.com> 

Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 1:24 PM

Subject: Section 106 Review: International Rail Port Logistics Park, West Memphis Arkansas

URS Corporation requests your agency’s comments regarding possible impact

on cultural and historical resources, of the above referenced project as you

think may be pertinent. The Project sponsor is the City of West Memphis

through a TIGER Grant administered by the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA).

Please find the attached coordination letter and preliminary site plan regarding

the proposed improvements. Thank you for your assistance and please let us

know if you have any questions.
Thank you,

Will Hager, AICP, LEED Green Associate

Project Planner

URS Corporation

1000 Corporate Centre Drive

One Corporate Centre, Suite 250

Franklin, TN 37067

(office) 615.771.2480

(direct) 615.224.2138

(mobile) 615.330.3563

(fax) 615.771.2459

This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If

you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of

this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies.
West Memphis International Rail Port Logistics Park 

PHONE CONVERSATION

S:\2013\city of west memphis\ea\Appendices\Appendix D ESA Section 7 Letters of Concurrence and USACE Wetlands 

Coordination\EPA Coordination Discussion 10 24 13 with Mike Jansky Region 6.docx 1 

Date: October 24, 2013 

Participants: Will Hager (URS) and Mike Jansky (EPA 

Subject: EPA Coordination 

Summary/Pertinent Points 

 EPA will review Draft EA when ready. 

 Emphasized proper coordination with other agencies (SHPO, Fish and Game, etc.) 

 EPA looks forward to receiving the Draft EA and will provide additional comments at that 

time. 

 Mr. Jansky has had good experiences working with URS in the past and suggested 

contacting URS staff in Austin if we have any questions regarding the development of 

EAs for EPA Region 6. 

Summary prepared by: WH








APPENDIX E 

Section 106 Consultation and 

Phase I Cultural Resource Report 




































































































PANAMERICAN CONSULTANTS, INC. 

PANAMERICAN REPORT NO. 34040

PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS 

FOR THE WEST MEMPHIS RAIL LOOP PROJECT,

CRITTENDEN COUNTY, ARKANSAS

ADDENDUM A:

RESULTS OF 2014 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

PREPARED FOR: 

ENSAFE

5724 SUMMER TREES DRIVE

MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38134 

PREPARED BY: 

PANAMERICAN CONSULTANTS, INC. 

91 TILLMAN STREET

MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38111 

DRAFT ADDENDUM REPORT

MARCH 2014
DRAFT ADDENDUM REPORT

PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS 

FOR THE WEST MEMPHIS RAIL LOOP PROJECT,

CRITTENDEN COUNTY, ARKANSAS

ADDENDUM A:

RESULTS OF 2014 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Prepared for: 

EnSafe 

5724 Summer Trees Drive 

Memphis, Tennessee 38134 

Prepared by: 

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 

91 Tillman Street 

Memphis, Tennessee 38111 

Phone: (901) 454-4733 

Panamerican Project No. 34040 

http://www.panamconsultants.com/

Eric S. Albertson, RPA 

Principal Investigator and Author 

MARCH 2014
i

ABSTRACT

Under contract with EnSafe, the Memphis office of Panamerican Consultants, Inc., conducted a 

Phase I cultural resources investigation of portions of the West Memphis Rail Loop Project in 

Crittenden County, Arkansas. The purpose of this study was to identify all archaeological 

resources within the proposed Area of Potential Effect and to provide appropriate management 

recommendations for any such resources encountered. The investigation resulted in negative 

findings. Thus, it has demonstrated that no National Register of Historic Places eligible or 

potentially eligible archaeological sites and/or deposits are located within the Area of Potential 

Effect for the proposed undertaking. 
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to have provided EnSafe with these 

archaeological services. Mr. Danny Adams was our point of contact, and provided technical 

support throughout the study. 

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. personnel who contributed to the project include the following. 

Andrew Saatkamp served as the Field Director. Bill Mansfield served as an Archaeological 

Technician. Anna Hinnenkamp-Faulk edited the addendum report. Kate Gilow provided 

administrative support during all phases of the project. 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................................................... iv

I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................1

PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................................1

PROJECT BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................................................1

PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................................................................1

NOTA BENE ................................................................................................................................................................2

II. METHODS..............................................................................................................................................................4

LITERATURE AND RECORDS SEARCH METHODS.........................................................................................................4

FIELD METHODS .........................................................................................................................................................4

LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND CURATION ..................................................................................................................5

III. RESULTS...............................................................................................................................................................6

IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................9

SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................................9

RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................................................10

V. REFERENCES CITED........................................................................................................................................11
iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-01. Project locator map; present study APE shaded in red, previously surveyed area(s) shaded in yellow...3

Figure 3-01. Photograph along Transect No. 1 in the eastern portion of the APE........................................................8

Figure 3-02. Photograph of pedestrian surface survey area in the western portion of the APE....................................8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-01. Shovel Test Inventory. ...............................................................................................................................6
Introduction

1 

I. INTRODUCTION

Under contract with EnSafe, the Memphis office of Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 

(Panamerican), conducted a Phase I cultural resources investigation of portions of the West 

Memphis Rail Loop Project in Crittenden County, Arkansas. The purpose of this study was to 

identify all known and unrecorded cultural resources present within the designated Area of 

Potential Effect (APE) and to provide appropriate management recommendations for any such 

properties identified. 

PROJECT LOCATION

The study area is located in extreme eastern Arkansas along the banks of the Mississippi River. 

The study are can be found a short distance south of the small community of Wyanoke near West 

Memphis in Crittenden County. Its exact location can be viewed on the 1993 [photorevised] 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fletcher Lake, AR-TN 7.5-minute quadrangle sheet (Figure 

1-01). 

PROJECT BACKGROUND

In August 2013, archaeologists with TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) conducted a 

cultural resources survey of 3.76 mi. of proposed new railroad track and a nearby 20-ac. tract 

slated for associated development. For the purpose of the archaeological survey, the APE along 

the new railroad track was 25 ft. In total, ≈42 ac. were surveyed during the 2013 TRC study 

(Barrett and Burr 2013). Portions of the surveyed area for the new railroad track lie immediately 

adjacent to the present study area. As part of the cultural resources survey, TRC also conducted 

an architectural study of historic properties lying within a 0.5-mi. radius of the proposed railroad 

track and 20-ac. associated tract (Barrett and Burr 2013). This radius encompasses all of the 

present study area. 

The TRC archaeological survey resulted in negative findings. No previously unrecorded 

architectural resources were located within 0.5 mi. of the APE. The location of one previously 

recorded architectural resource (CT-0017) within the APE radius was revisited, but was found to 

be no longer extant (Barrett and Burr 2013). 

Staff of The Department of Arkansas Heritage, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP) 

reviewed the TRC cultural resources report and concurred that “no historic properties will be 

affected by the proposed undertaking” in written correspondence dated 8 November 2013. 

Subsequently, in review of a Clean Water Act permit application (dated 14 January 2014), U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) archaeologists noted in correspondence on 19 February 

2014 that additional areas associated with the planned undertaking would require archaeological 

assessment. These additional areas were the subject of the cultural resources investigation 

reported herein and are described in detail in the section immediately following. 

PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

The present study area encompasses a planned grain storage facility, conveyor, adjacent access 

road, and parking area (see Figure 1-01). Proposed construction plans locate the grain storage 

facility on the landside of the St. Francis levee immediately east of the proposed railroad track 

previously surveyed by TRC. The conveyer system originates at the grain storage facility, 

crosses the levee to the east, and continues eastward for ≈740 m before terminating at the bank of 

the Mississippi River. The proposed access road also originates at the grain storage facility, 

crosses the levee to the east, and parallels the proposed conveyor system. Combined, the APE 
Introduction

2 

for the conveyor system and access road measures only ≈100 ft. (30 m) wide. A proposed 

parking area lies immediately south of the proposed conveyor system and access road APE on 

the riverside of the levee near the Mississippi River bank. It total, the present study area covers 

≈21.6 ac. 

Portions of the study area to the west (i.e., inside or landside) of the St. Francis levee were 

encompassed by a large, harvested agricultural field at the time of survey. Portions of the study 

area to the east (i.e., outside or riverside) of the levee were largely covered in bottomland 

hardwoods between the levee toe and the banks of the Mississippi River. A narrow, harvested 

agricultural field crossed the study area near the Mississippi River bank in the eastern portion of 

the study area as well. 

NOTA BENE

This technical report is designed to serve as an addendum to a previous report published in 2013 

entitled Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations for the West Memphis Rail Loop Project, 

Crittenden County, Arkansas (Barrett and Burr 2013) by TRC Environmental Corporation of 

Nashville, Tennessee. Readers are encouraged to consult the latter report for more detailed 

information, particularly regarding the natural setting and cultural history of the project area and 

its vicinity. 
Introduction

3 

Figure 1-01. Project locator map; present study APE shaded in red, previously surveyed area(s) shaded in 

yellow (base map: 1993 [photorevised] Fletcher Lake AR-TN USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle sheet).
Methods

4

II. METHODS

LITERATURE AND RECORDS SEARCH METHODS

A standard literature and records search was conducted in advance of the original cultural 

resources investigation of the West Memphis Rail Loop project area by TRC. Barrett and Burr 

(2013) reported the results of this previous search in detail. The radius (1 mi.) for the original 

search encompassed the present study area. Panamerican conducted another review of 

archaeological records at the Arkansas Archeological Survey’s (AAS’s) Fayetteville facility in 

advance of the present study. The second records check confirmed that no new archaeological 

sites had been identified within 1 mi. of the present study area in the interim between the present 

and 2013 archaeological studies for this proposed undertaking. 

FIELD METHODS

All methodologies employed during the completion of this study were in accordance with 

Appendix B of the Arkansas State Plan: Guidelines for Archeological Fieldwork and Report 

Writing in Arkansas (Revised Version in effect as of 1 January 2010). Site detection methods 

employed during fieldwork for this archaeological assessment included a combination of 

systematic shovel testing and pedestrian surface survey. 

Shovel testing was employed as the means of site detection in vegetated portions of the study 

area. Such areas were limited to the largely wooded tract east of the St. Francis levee. Shovel 

testing was conducted at 20-m intervals. Given the narrow APE (100 ft. [30 m]) only a single 

shovel test transect was required to cover the APE east of the levee. However, a series of lateral 

shovel tests, excavated 20 m perpendicular to the main transect, were required to cover the small 

proposed parking area near the Mississippi River and the proposed ramp location for the access 

road immediately east of the St. Francis levee toe. 

Shovel tests consisted of holes approximately 30 cm in diameter. Shovel test were excavated to 

sterile subsoil or the maximum effective depth of excavation (i.e., 50–75 cm below surface 

[cmbs]) was reached. All fill from shovel tests was passed through 0.25-in. hardware cloth to 

ensure consistent artifact recovery. Shovel test profiles were recorded on standardized forms. 

Profile descriptions included on the latter forms utilized Munsell Soil Color Chart references and 

standard Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) terminology to describe textural 

classes. Additional information recorded for each shovel test included the maximum depth of 

excavation, presence or absence of cultural material, and the nature of any recovered artifacts. 

All areas disturbed by excavations were restored (i.e., backfilled) as closely as possible to their 

original condition. 

Shovel testing was not conducted in water-covered, steeply sloped, and/or obviously disturbed 

portions of the study area. Additionally, shovel testing was not conducted atop, or on the toe of, 

the St. Francis levee. Any omission of potential shovel test locations was documented on the 

standardized forms noted above. 

Portions of the study area affording good surface visibility (50–75 percent at the time of 

assessment) were examined for potential archaeological sites via pedestrian surface survey. 

Pedestrian surface survey was employed only in the agricultural field west of the St. Francis 

levee. Surface survey was conducted via crewmembers walking along parallel pedestrian 

transects spaced at ≈10–15 m apart while continually examining the exposed ground surface for 

the presence of artifacts. 
Methods

5

Note that as the survey resulted in negative findings, a discussion of site delineation methods, 

etc. is not warranted here. 

Ancillary documentation of Phase I fieldwork included daily field notes kept by the Principal 

Investigator and/or Field Director. Digital photographs recording the nature of the APE were 

taken regularly throughout fieldwork. 

LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND CURATION

As the present study resulted in negative findings, a discussion of laboratory methods is not 

warranted here. However, all attendant data (photos, recording forms, etc.) will be prepared for 

curation following the standards set forth in Federal Regulations 36CFR79–Curation of FederalOwned and Administered Archaeological Collections and will be compliant with requirements of 

the University of Arkansas Collections Facility at the AAS in Fayetteville. 
Methods

6

III. RESULTS

Phase I cultural resources investigation of the present study area occurred over two days, 6 and 

14 March 2014. The interruption in fieldwork was attributable to a substantial winter weather 

event that affected the project vicinity on 2 and 3 March 2014. The event left the project area 

covered in snow and ice for approximately the next week. Despite the frozen precipitation, all 

portions of the study area east of the St. Francis levee were archaeologically surveyed on 

6 March 2014. This portion of the study area was largely vegetated and required shovel testing 

as the only means of site detection. The narrow agricultural field east of the levee was also 

shovel tested during the initial field effort. All available surface visibility in the agricultural field 

west of the levee remained obscured by snow and ice on 6 March 2014. As a result, crews were 

delayed in the completion of the latter portion of the study area until the following week. Crews 

returned to the study area on 14 March 2014 and surveyed the field west of the levee utilizing 

pedestrian surface survey methods. 

A total of 31 shovel test positions were recorded along three transects (Nos. 1–3) in the eastern 

portion of the study area (Table 3-01). Transect No. 1 was excavated along the proposed 

conveyor and access road APE (Figure 3-01). Transect Nos. 2 and 3 were excavated 

perpendicular to Transect No. 1 immediately east of the St. Francis levee toe in the area proposed 

as a levee-crossing ramp for the access road. Of the 31 total shovel tests, 28 were excavated. 

Shovel tests at three potential locations were not excavated. Two potential test locations fell on a 

berm surrounding a large borrow pit and the third fell on riprap at the bank of the Mississippi 

River. All of the excavated shovel tests were sterile. 

Table 3-01. Shovel Test Inventory.

Transect

No. ST No. Status Max Depth (cmbs) Comments

1 1 ¢ 50

1 2 ¢ 50

1 3 ¢ 50

1 4 ¢ 50

1 5 ¢ 50

1 6 ¢ 50

1 7 ¢ 40

1 8 ¢ 40

1 9 ¢ 40

1 10 X 0 berm around borrow pit

1 11 ¢ 40

1 12 ¢ 40

1 13 ¢ 40

1 14 ¢ 40

1 15 X 0 berm around borrow pit

1 16 ¢ 40

1 17 ¢ 50

1 18 ¢ 50

1 19 ¢ 50

1 20 ¢ 50

1 21 X 0 slope, rock (riprap) along MS 

River

2 1 ¢ 40
Methods

7

Transect

No. ST No. Status Max Depth (cmbs) Comments

2 2 ¢ 40

2 3 ¢ 40

2 4 ¢ 40

2 5 ¢ 40

3 1 ¢ 40

3 2 ¢ 40

3 3 ¢ 40

3 4 ¢ 40

3 5 ¢ 40

Key: Positive=l; Negative=¢; and No Test=X. 

Once clear of frozen precipitation, the agricultural field west of the St. Francis levee exhibited 

good to excellent surface visibility (50–75 percent). The surface of the latter portion of the study 

area was closely inspected by crews working along pedestrian transects spaced ≈10–15 m apart. 

Crewmembers continually examined the exposed ground surface along each transect for the 

presence of artifacts. Surface survey of the western portion of the study area also resulted in 

negative findings. 

Investigations of portions of the proposed West Memphis Rail Loop Project APE reported herein 

resulted in negative findings. Thus it has been demonstrated that no National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) eligible or potentially eligible archaeological sites and/or deposits are 

located within the proposed APE. 
Methods

8

Figure 3-01. Photograph along Transect No. 1 in the eastern portion of the APE; view east (IMG_1476.jpg).

Figure 3-02. Photograph of pedestrian surface survey area in the western portion of the APE; view west

(DSCN1514.jpg).
Summary and Recommendations

9

IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

Under contract with EnSafe, Panamerican conducted a Phase I cultural resources investigation of 

portions of the proposed West Memphis Rail Loop Project in Crittenden County, Arkansas. The 

purpose of this study was to identify all known and unrecorded cultural resources present within 

the designated APE and to provide appropriate management recommendations for any such 

properties identified. 

Archaeological work for the West Memphis Rail Loop Project began with a cultural resources 

survey conducted by TRC in 2013. During the previous survey, TRC investigated 3.76 mi. of 

proposed new railroad track and a nearby 20-ac. tract slated for associated development. The 

2013 survey resulted in negative findings. AHPP reviewed the resulting report of findings 

(Barrett and Burr 2013) and concurred with TRC’s recommendations that “no historic properties 

will be affected by the proposed undertaking” in a letter dated 8 November 2013. Subsequently, 

in review of a Clean Water Act permit application associated with the proposed undertaking, 

USACE archaeologists noted that additional areas encompassed by the planned undertaking 

would require archaeological assessment. 

These “additional areas” designated by the USACE were the subject of the cultural resources 

investigation reported herein. As such, this document is designed to serve as an addendum to a 

previous report published by TRC in 2013 entitled Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations for 

the West Memphis Rail Loop Project, Crittenden County, Arkansas (Barrett and Burr 2013). 

The present study area encompasses a planned grain storage facility, conveyor, adjacent access 

road, and parking area (see Figure 1-01). Proposed construction plans locate the grain storage 

facility on the landside (or inside) of the St. Francis levee immediately east of the proposed 

railroad track previously surveyed by TRC. The conveyer system originates at the grain storage 

facility, crosses the levee to the east, and continues eastward for ≈740 m before terminating at 

the bank of the Mississippi River. The proposed access road also originates at the grain storage 

facility, crosses the levee to the east, and parallels the proposed conveyor system. Combined, the 

APE for the conveyor system and access road measures only ≈100 ft. (30 m) wide. A proposed 

parking area lies immediately south of the proposed conveyor system and access road APE on 

the riverside of the levee near the Mississippi River bank. It total, the present study area covers 

≈21.6 ac. 

Archaeological survey of the present study area was conducted over two days, 6 and 14 March 

2014. Site detection strategies employed included a combination of systematic 20-m interval 

shovel testing and pedestrian surface survey. Shovel testing was employed exclusively on the 

heavily vegetated eastern (riverside or outside) of the St. Francis levee. Pedestrian surface 

survey was employed on the western (landside or inside) of the St. Francis levee where the APE 

occupied an agricultural field affording good to excellent (50–75 percent) surface visibility at the 

time of the assessment. 

A total of 31 shovel test positions were investigated during the present study. Excavation was 

not possible at three of these positions due to disturbance (borrow pit berm) and/or obstruction 

(riprap). Excavation of the other 28 shovel tests yielded negative findings. Pedestrian surface 

survey in the western portion of the APE resulted in negative findings as well. 
Summary and Recommendations

10

RECOMMENDATIONS

Cultural resources investigation of portions of the proposed West Memphis Rail Loop Project 

APE reported herein resulted in negative findings. Thus, it has been demonstrated that no NRHP 

eligible or potentially eligible archaeological sites and/or deposits are located within the 

proposed APE. 
11

V. REFERENCES CITED

Barrett, J., and J. Burr 

 2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations for the West Memphis Rail Loop Project, 

Crittenden County, Arkansas. TRC Environmental Corporation, Nashville, 

Tennessee. Draft report submitted to URS Corporation, Franklin, Tennessee. 
APPENDIX F 

Social Effects and Environmental 

Justice Discipline Report 
International Rail Port Logistics Park 

City of West Memphis Arkansas

October 2013
Appendix F: Socio-economic and 

Environmental Justice Assessment 

Submitted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act

(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c))

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Prepared by: URS Corporation

Franklin TN, USA

October 2013
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of a socio-economic assessment conducted for the 

proposed International Rail Port Logistics Park (IRPLP) in West Memphis, Crittenden 

County, Arkansas. The report includes a screening for environmental justice 

populations, an investigation of the existing social and economic conditions, and an 

evaluation of project-related socio-economic impacts. 

The project area is located south of the City of West Memphis which has a minority 

population of 66.7 percent. Many of the city’s top employers are located within the Study 

Area. American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year summary data from 2007-2011 was 

used to identify current demographic characteristics and protected populations. 

Employment projections were provided by the City of West Memphis Office of Economic 

Development. 

The proposed IRPLP as currently designed would extend rail access to industrial and 

undeveloped property that is currently zoned for industrial use. The IRPLP also provides 

a transfer point for rail bound freight to maritime shipping operations on the Mississippi 

River.

The proposed IRPLP would expand rail infrastructure to underdeveloped areas of the 

City of West Memphis that are planned for industrial development. Residents of West 

Memphis and existing industry could benefit from the 147 short and long term 

employment opportunities projected for the project. The proposed IRPLP would not 

create adverse impacts for community cohesion or protected populations. No adverse 

socio-economic impacts are expected as a result of the proposed IRPLP proposal. 
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................ii

TABLES.....................................................................................................................................iii

FIGURES...................................................................................................................................iii

1.0 Study area and Methodology...........................................................................................1

1.1 Study area...................................................................................................................1

1.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................1

1.3 Sources Consulted ......................................................................................................3

2.0 Population and Employment............................................................................................3

2.1 Current and Forecast Population .................................................................................3

2.2 Projected Employment.................................................................................................4

2.3 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................4

2.3.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................................................4

2.3.2 The Build Alternative............................................................................................4

3.0 Protected Populations .....................................................................................................4

3.1 Legal and Regulatory Framework................................................................................5

3.2 Methodology................................................................................................................6

3.2.1 Study Area Delineation ........................................................................................6

3.2.2 Data Collection ....................................................................................................6

3.2.3 Environmental Justice Populations ......................................................................8

3.3 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................12

3.3.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................12

3.3.2 Build Alternative.................................................................................................12

4.0 Limited English Proficiency............................................................................................12

5.0 Community Cohesion ....................................................................................................12

5.1 Community events.....................................................................................................13

5.2 Neighborhoods/Residential........................................................................................13

5.2.1 Neighborhoods ..................................................................................................13

5.2.2 Affordable & Public Housing ..............................................................................13

5.3 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................15

5.3.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................15

5.3.2 Build Alternative.................................................................................................15

6.0 Existing Economic Conditions .......................................................................................15

6.1 Employment Numbers in Study Area .........................................................................15

6.2 Businesses ................................................................................................................15

6.2.1 No Build Alternative ...........................................................................................15

6.2.2 Build Alternative.................................................................................................15

6.3 Developing or Redeveloping Areas............................................................................16

6.4 Relocations & Displacements ....................................................................................16

7.0 Literature/Sources Cited................................................................................................17
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 iii

TABLES

Table 1: Population Growth.....................................................................................................4

Table 2: Environmental Justice Populations............................................................................9

Table 3: Affordable Housing Within the Study Area...............................................................13

Table 4: Potential Industrial Development Within the Study Area ..........................................16

FIGURES

Figure 1: Socioeconomic Study Area ......................................................................................2

Figure 2: U.S. Census Block Groups.......................................................................................7

Figure 3: Environmental Justice Populations.........................................................................10

Figure 4: Immediate Project Area..........................................................................................11

Figure 5: Low Income and Public Housing ............................................................................14
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 1 

1.0 STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY

The IRPLP project includes improvements to the industrial rail spur that extends to the 

southwest from the BNSF rail line. Additional rail is proposed to extend west of the existing rail 

spur and then south before looping and returning north near Fletcher Lake. This new rail loop 

will accommodate unit trains consisting of 100 cars for the purpose of transferring shipments 

from rail to maritime carriers operating on the Mississippi River. The IRPLP includes 

construction of a transload facility that would allow for the transfer of freight from the rail loop to 

neaby barges. The transload facility would be accessed by a proposed extension of Port Road, 

which is also part of this project. An additional rail spur is proposed to service a property zoned 

for industrial activity east of the existing spur line. These improvements are shown on Figure 1. 

1.1 STUDY AREA

The Study Area for analyzing socio-economic and environmental justice effects is roughly 

bounded by the Mississippi River on the south and east, U.S. Highway 70 to the north, and 

Waverly Road to the west. The Study Area is larger than the immediate IRPLP project area

because the potential social effects of the proposed project could extend into the local 

community beyond the physical footprint of the proposed activities in the project area. For 

consistency and clarity with demographic research conducted for the project, the Study Area

coincides with and includes the full geographic limits of census tracts 303.01 (block groups 1 

and 2), 303.02 (block group1), 305.01 (block group 1), 305.02 (block group 1), 306.00 (block 

groups 1 and 3), and 312.00 (block groups 1 and 2). Figure 1 illustrates the extents of the Study 

Area.

1.2 METHODOLOGY

Socioeconomic resources and environmental justice concerns in the Study Area were evaluated 

by conducting a visual survey and interviewing key port outreach staff to research how people, 

both residents and employees, within and adjacent to the Study Area would be affected by the 

changes that would occur with the proposed project. The research conducted was used to 

establish baseline conditions to attempt to quantify and qualify anticipated social and 

environmental justice effects of constructing and operating the proposed project. 
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 2 

Figure 1: Socio-Economic Study Area
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 3 

1.3 SOURCES CONSULTED

Demographic data and employment information was used to evaluate the socioeconomic 

conditions in the Study Area. This baseline data, as well as the projections, will be used to 

evaluate and access likely impacts to the identified socioeconomic groups and how they may be 

impacted from changes to land form and land use.

Multiple public data sources were used to gather demographic data on the Study Area for this 

technical report. The U.S. Census Bureau publishes American Community Survey (ACS)

Survey data at a block group geography which was used to describe race/ethnicity and 

economic conditions within the project Study Area. Other employment and income data was 

provided from other sources, as indicated. A complete list of sources is provided in Section 7.0

of this technical report. 

2.0 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT 

2.1 CURRENT AND FORECAST POPULATION

The University of Arkansas’ Center for Business and Economic Research calculated population 

projections indicating that between 2010 and 2025 the number of people residing within 

Crittenden County will increase by 15.3 percent to 59,113. This population projection also 

includes 95 percent prediction interval with a “Lower Bound” of 57,280 and an “Upper Bound” of 

61,004. This prediction interval states the population of Crittenden County will fall within this 

interval with 95 percent confidence. The population projections for Crittenden County are 

illustrated in Table 1. Independent population projections for the City of West Memphis were not 

available at this time.

Table 1: Population Growth

Year

Baseline Lower Bound Upper Bound

Estimate

Absolute 

Change 

from 

2002

Percent 

Change 

from 

2002 Estimate

Absolute 

Change 

from 

2002

Percent 

Change 

from 

2002 Estimate

Absolute 

Change 

from 

2002

Percent 

Change 

from 

2002

2005 52,402 1,111 2.2% 51,896 605 1.2% 52,918 1,627 3.2%

2010 54,009 2,718 5.3% 53,221 1930 3.8% 54,803 3,512 6.8%

2015 55,659 4,368 8.5% 54,551 3260 6.4% 56,789 5,498 10.7%

2020 57,360 6,069 11.8% 55,882 4591 9.0% 58,853 7,562 14.7%

2025 59,113 7,822 15.3% 57,280 5989 11.7% 61,004 9,713 18.9%

Source: Arkansas Population Projections: 2003 – 2025. University of Arkansas Center for Business and Economic 

Research.
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 4 

2.2 PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT

According to estimates provided by the City of West Memphis Office of Economic Development, 

the IRPLP will create 147 jobs. This number represents the construction phase and long term 

operations of the IRPLP. 

The construction phase of the project is estimated to last approximately two years and includes 

design and engineering; environmental; management and inspection; railroad, roadway and 

utility construction. The construction phase will employ a total of 87 individuals.

The long term operations phase will create employment opportunities at the grain processing 

facility (13 employees); green re-processing of petro chemicals (35 employees); transload 

facility/Rail-Barge Terminal (12 employees). Seven of the 12 positions at the transload facility 

will be in management. 

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Given anticipated population and employment growth, providing additional opportunities for 

industrial development would increase access to employment opportunities within the region. 

The initial investment in design and construction could potentially have direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts through the creation of infrastructure improvements and employment 

opportunities. Presence of the IRPLP would diversify intermodal freight opportunities within the 

Memphis region by connecting seasonal grain shipments on western rail freight lines to 

maritime carriers operating on the Mississippi River. 

2.3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative would have no measurable impact on existing employment centers or 

population numbers. However, without the proposed port improvements and transload facility, 

the Study Area may not realize additional employment and industrial development opportunities 

that would be induced by the construction and operation of the proposed IRPLP. 

2.3.2 THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

The IRPLP could increase the employment opportunities in the Study Area by facilitating new 

industrial development. Existing industrial facilities may expand current operations by taking 

advantage of expanded port services and capabilities. 

Underdeveloped properties that are zoned for industrial and container storage uses may be 

developed to those purposes as necessary rail infrastructure is provided by the IRPLP project.

Freight traffic is expected to increase as a result of the Build Alternative. The increase in freight 

traffic could impact roadway operations throughout the Study Area because of the number of atgrade rail crossings. However, the increase in rail freight could divert a significant portion of 

continental eastbound shipments that currently cross the Mississippi River via rail and roadway 

to maritime shipping methods.

3.0 PROTECTED POPULATIONS 

This section provides an assessment of protected populations in order to determine whether the 

project will have disproportionately high and adverse impacts to low-income, minority, or other 
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 5 

populations protected by Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title VI) and described as 

protected populations in this document. A dual purpose is to determine whether protected 

populations will receive equitable distribution of benefits. The fact that the IRPLP project is 

located in an area designated for industrial development away from established residential 

areas means that protected populations will not be adversely impacted by the IRPLP project. At 

the same time, the IRPLP has the potential to provide a variety of future employment 

opportunities for protected populations within the Study Area.

3.1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Title VI and related statutes provide that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, age, 

religion, sex, national origin, or handicap/disability, be excluded from participation in, or be 

denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subject to discrimination under any program of the 

federal, state, or local government. 

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations [59 

Federal Register (FR) 7629]. EO 12898 was designed to supplement Title VI, EO 12250 and the 

resulting promulgated regulations for the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) 

[49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 21], all of which prohibit discriminatory practices in 

programs receiving Federal financial support. The thrust of EO 12898 is to identify and address, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects of each 

agency’s programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. 

Specifically, EO 12898 mandates that all federal agencies provide a strategy to implement the 

EO, which charges each federal agency with responsibility of: 

conduct[ing] its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health 

or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities 

do not have the effect of excluding persons (including populations) from participation in, 

denying persons (including populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons (including 

populations) to discrimination under, such programs, policies, and activities, because of 

their race, color, or national origin. (59 FR 7629, Section 2-2)

This order also requires that each agency: 

whenever practicable and appropriate, collect, maintain and analyze information on the 

race, national origin, income level, and other readily accessible and appropriate 

information for areas surrounding facilities or sites expected to have a substantial 

environmental, human health, or economic effect on the surrounding populations, when 

such facilities or sites become the subject of a substantial Federal environmental 

administrative or judicial action. Such information shall be made available to the public, 

unless prohibited by law; and (c) Each Federal agency, whenever practicable and 

appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and analyze information on the race, national origin, 

income level, and other readily accessible and appropriate information for areas 

surrounding Federal facilities that are... (2) expected to have a substantial 

environmental, human health, or economic effect on surrounding populations. Such 

information shall be made available to the public, unless prohibited by law. (59 FR 7629, 

Section 2-3[b]) 

In response to the mandates of EO 12898, USDOT developed a Final Environmental Justice 

Strategy (60 FR 125: 33896) and a proposed USDOT Order titled, Actions to Address 
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 6 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The analysis 

contained in this technical memorandum is consistent with that outlined in the USDOT Final 

Strategy and proposed Order. 

3.2 METHODOLOGY

3.2.1 STUDY AREA DELINEATION

For purposes of this assessment, the Study Area was delineated by including all U.S. Census 

block groups located within the City of West Memphis and Crittenden County intersecting an

area bound by the Mississippi River to the south and east, Highway 70 (Broadway) to the north, 

and Waverly Road to the west. The block groups were identified using a GIS mapping tool and 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Community Survey (ACS). Figure 1 

illustrates the Study Area for this report.

Residential populations are not present in the immediate IRPLP project area. No residential 

uses are located south of the Dabbs Avenue and the Tenn-Ark Rail Spur located at the 

northern-most extent of the IRPLP project. 

3.2.2 DATA COLLECTION

Data were collected from the 2007-2011 ACS data released by the U.S. Census for each block 

group composing the Study Area. Data were collected for 9 block groups.
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 7 

Figure 2: U.S. Census Block Groups

Tenn-Ark Rail 

Spur & limit of 

residential 

development

Dabbs Avenue
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 8 

3.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS

Identification Parameters

In order to assess potential impacts to populations protected by EO 12898 and Title VI, lowincome and minority populations in the Study Area were identified. 

According to the USDOT Order on Environmental Justice (62 FR 18377), an individual is 

considered to have a low income if their median household income is at or below the poverty 

guidelines, as set by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The DHHS 

poverty guidelines are available online at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/figures-fed-reg.shtml. In 

2011 the poverty guideline for a four-person family was $22,350. According to DHHS, “The best 

approximation for the number of people below the HHS poverty guidelines in a particular area 

would be the number of persons below the Census Bureau poverty thresholds in that area.” For 

this reason the U.S. Census poverty threshold was used to calculate low-income individuals. 

Poverty levels used by the U.S. Census Bureau are available online at 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/methods/definitions.html. In 2011 the weighted 

average threshold for a four-person household was $23,021. 

In FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-income Populations

(Order 6640.23) USDOT provides clear definitions of the four minority groups addressed by EO 

12898. These groups are:

• Black – a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa;

• Hispanic – a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South 

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race;

• Asian American – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far 

East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands; and

• American Indian and Alaskan Native – a person having origins in any of the 

original people of North America and who maintains cultural identification through 

tribal affiliation or community recognition. 

Process

Geographic block group data from the U.S. Census Bureau was used for the environmental 

justice analysis came. Demographic data sets were downloaded from the 2007-2011 American 

Community Survey (ACS) for race and income (Table B02001, "Race" and Table C17002, 

"Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months). 

For poverty status, the County average for persons below the poverty line was determined to be 

35.9percent according to ACS data. The County average was used as a threshold for 

determining which block groups in the Study Area had higher concentrations of residents below 

the poverty line.

The county-wide average for minority populations in Crittenden County is 53.4 percent. The 

threshold for accessing Environmental Justice populations based on minority status is 10 

percent higher than the county wide average or when the minority population exceeds 50 

percent. In the case of Crittenden County, the minority status threshold would thus be 50 

percent. Minority residents included in the total minority count for each block group were Black 
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 9 

or African American alone, American Indian and Alaska Native alone, Asian alone, Native 

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, some other race alone, and two or more races. 

Analysis

The percentage for populations living below poverty in the City of West Memphis is 35.9

percent. For Crittenden County the percentage of the population living below the poverty line is 

27.9 percent. The county percentage is used as the threshold for Environmental Justice 

populations living below poverty. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the percentage of 

populations living below poverty by Census block groups located within the Study Area. These 

areas are generally located east of S. Avalon Street within the Study Area.

All nine block groups that comprise the Study Area contain a percentage of minorities greater 

than 50 percent. Within the Study Area, the percent of minority populations in block groups 

range from 58.8 percent to 100 percent. The areas of highest minority concentration are in 

established residential neighborhoods located south of Highway 70 (Broadway) and north of the 

existing rail line. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the percentage of minority populations by 

Census block groups located within the Study Area. Figure 2 illustrates identified low-income 

populations within the Study Area.

Figure 2 illustrates the block groups within the Study Area that surpass the Environmental 

Justice thresholds for minority populations and populations living below poverty. The project is 

located in an existing industrial area south of the more populated residential neighborhoods. 

The lack of residences is further illustrated in Figure 3.

Table 2: Environmental Justice Populations

Census Tract Block Group Total Population Percent Below Poverty Percent Minority

303.01 1 889 35.66 84.04

303.01 2 1907 22.71 60.15

303.02 1 2493 54.07 77.80

305.01 1 1006 28.43 95.73

305.02 1 1084 53.97 100.00

306.00 1 1670 58.62 87.31

306.00 3 1203 26.43 58.77

312.00 1 775 64.90 100.00

312.00 2 1034 47.20 99.24

Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011 5-year Summary.
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 0 

Figure 3: Environmental Justice Populations 

Source: 2007-2011 American Community Survey
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 11

Figure 4: Immediate Project Area
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 12

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative would not measurably affect protected populations within the Study 

Area. However, this alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the proposed IRPLP

project. Under the No-Build Alternative the anticipated industrial development and job creation 

that is expected to follow the IRPLP project would not be realized. 

3.3.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The Build Alternative provides additional employment opportunities for protected populations.

The project will increase rail and maritime freight access in the industrial area of West Memphis. 

The areas adjacent to the proposed improvement are industrial and undeveloped properties. 

The IRPLP project would not have disproportionate impacts to protected populations because 

minority or low-income households would not be relocated due to the Build Alternative. 

Additionally, no minority owned businesses would be relocated or disrupted under the Build 

Alternative.

4.0 LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY

Executive Order 13166 “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency” requires agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for 

services to those with LEP, and develop and implement a system to provide those services so 

that LEP persons can have meaningful access to them. This section provides an identification of 

populations with a Limited English Proficiency (LEP) in the Study Area to determine if specific 

outreach to these populations is required. 

The US Department of Justice (USDOJ) Safe Harbor Threshold requires specific outreach when 

the total number of persons in a particular language group that speaks English less than very 

well exceeds 1,000 persons or 5 percent of the total population in the project Study Area. 

The 2007-2011 ACS data published by the U.S. Census Bureau does not indicate that a LEP 

population meeting the USDOJ Safe Harbor threshold, but the data does indicate populations of 

non-English speakers in the community. Specifically, the ACS data identified 51 persons in the 

Study Area five years or older who identify themselves as speaking English less that “very well”. 

To ensure a fair and equal opportunity to participate in the public process, all public notices will 

be published in English and Spanish to ensure that non-English speakers in the area will have 

access to project information. Additionally, notices will indicated that Spanish-translation 

services for all public meeting would be available upon request. Efforts should be made to reach 

out to LEP populations and to be in compliant with EO 13166.

5.0 COMMUNITY COHESION

The proposed IRPLP improvements are located in the southern portion of West Memphis in an 

area characterized by industrial and agricultural development. Residential areas are located 

north of the project area beyond Dabbs Avenue and the existing Tenn-Ark rail spur. The more 

extensive improvements such as the transload station are located on port property, which is not 

accessible to the public. 
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 13

The City of West Memphis displays a high degree of community cohesion centered on

numerous neighborhood parks, healthcare, schools and worship facilities that serve well defined 

neighborhoods. However, these neighborhoods are not located in the project area and 

community cohesion will not be adversely impacted by the project.

5.1 COMMUNITY EVENTS

One community event was identified as being located within the project area. The “Runnin’ on 

the Levee” barrel racing series is hosted by the Crittenden County Saddle Club

(www.crittendencountysaddleclub.org) and held every July, August and October at the West 

Memphis Fairgrounds. The fairgrounds are located on city-owned property northeast of the Port 

Road and South Loop Road intersection. The IRPLP project would not use any portion of the 

fairground property and access to and from the fairgrounds would not change as a result of the 

project. 

5.2 NEIGHBORHOODS/RESIDENTIAL

5.2.1 NEIGHBORHOODS

The proposed project does not involve the use of properties within established residential areas 

of West Memphis. The residential portion of the Study Area is primarily located north of the 

Dabbs Avenue and away from the proposed improvements. These residential properties are 

located near the existing Tenn-Ark rail spur and BNSF rail line and would not be impacted by 

the new rail or transload facility that is included in the IRPLP project. A relatively small area of 

residential uses are located south of Rainer Road west of the Riverbend Distribution Center on 

South Avalon Road. This neighborhood is approximately 0.5 mile from the IRPLP alignment and 

would not be impacted by the proposed Build Alternative.

5.2.2 AFFORDABLE & PUBLIC HOUSING

The Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA) provides affordable housing options for 

Arkansas residents. These communities serve elderly, disabled, as well as, low-income 

residents. The eight ADFA housing developments located within the Study Area are listed in 

Table 9.

Table 3: Affordable Housing within the Study Area

Name Location Type

Broadway Terrace 189 Elizabeth Lane Family

D.R.E.D. 1750 E Broadway Family

Families First II 2211 Jackson Heights Family

Malcolm Manor Apartments 800 South 10th Street Family

Meadows 1101 S Avalon Street Family

Park Plaza I 3952 E Service Road Family

Park Plaza II 4000 E Service Road Family

Rainer Village 1400 Village Drive Family
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 14

Name Location Type

Ridge at West Memphis 210 West Jackson Avenue Family

Villas of West Memphis 141 West Jackson Avenue Elderly

Source: http://www.arkansas.gov/adfa/Apartment%20Finder/crittenden_county.htm

Public housing managed by the West Memphis Housing Authority is also located within the 

Study Area. The West Memphis Public Housing Authority is concentrated in an area northeast

of the IRPLP project area along South Walker Avenue. 

Figure 5: Low Income & Public Housing.
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 15

5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5.3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative would have no measurable impact on community cohesion. However, 

if rail freight traffic increases due to the expanded port capabilities, the at-grade crossings within 

the study area may affect traffic operations on streets within the Study Area.

5.3.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The Build Alternative would provide residents within the Study Area with additional employment 

opportunities. The IRPLP project could also encourage persons employed by the project to 

relocate and take up residence in the City of West Memphis. These factors could work to 

stabilize neighborhoods by allowing current residents to stay in their homes while attracting new 

residents to the Study Area. 

No affordable or public housing developments would be used by the IRPLP project. No adverse 

impacts to affordable or public housing developments are anticipated as a result of this project.

6.0 EXISTING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

6.1 EMPLOYMENT NUMBERS IN STUDY AREA

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports an annual average labor force of 20,872 persons for 

Crittenden County, Arkansas, including the City of West Memphis. In April of 2013, Crittenden 

County reported an unemployment rate of 9.6 percent compared to a rate of 11.8 percent for the 

same month the previous year. Crittenden County is also included in the Memphis, TN-MS-AR 

Metropolitan Statistical Area which reported an increase in the unemployment rate from 8.5 in 

April of 2012 to 9.0 for April, 2013. 

The City of West Memphis Office of Economic Development estimates a total of 147 jobs would 

be created by the IRPLP project. Eighty-seven of these jobs would be focused on the design 

and construction of the railroad, roadway and associated utilities. Sixty additional jobs would be 

created by the long term operation of the IRPLP.

6.2 BUSINESSES

The Study Area contains the Port of West Memphis, established industrial operations and 

unimproved properties that are zoned for future industrial development. These areas have the 

potential to benefit from the expanded rail access and maritime port connection.

6.2.1 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on businesses within the Study Area. However 

without the proposed IRPLP, existing businesses may not be able to utilize diversified 

intermodal freight opportunities within the Memphis region provided by the expanded port 

capabilities. 

6.2.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The Build Alternative will directly impact employment opportunities in the Study Area through 

the addition of jobs located at the Port of West Memphis that will be needed to accommodate 
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 16

the expansion in port operations. Additionally, other businesses in the Study Area may look to 

expand their operations in order to take full advantage of the more efficient and convenient 

shipping opportunities provided by the IRPLP. The increase in economic activity would increase 

local and federal tax revenues which could then be reinvested in the community. 

The construction phase of the project is estimated to last approximately two years and includes 

design and engineering; environmental; management and inspection; railroad, roadway and 

utility construction. The construction phase will employ a total of 87 individuals.

The long term operations phase will create employment opportunities at the grain processing 

facility (13 employees); green re-processing of petro chemicals (35 employees); transload 

facility/Rail-Barge Terminal (12 employees). Seven of the 12 positions at the transload facility 

will be in management.

6.3 DEVELOPING OR REDEVELOPING AREAS

Six large tracts are currently being marketed for industrial development within the Study Area. 

Table 10 lists undeveloped properties that are available for industrial development within the 

Study Area. 

Table 4: Potential Industrial Development in the Study Area

Name Location Zoning Acreage

AEP Property End of Port Rd. I2CE 1000+

Bollinger Property Between Port Rd. & Airport Rd. I-2 1200+

Cox Acreage Port Rd. & Wyanoke Rd. I-1 & I-2 410

Ferguson South Site Rainer Rd. I-2-C 354

Ferguson West Site Airport Rd. I-2-C 63

Goldsby South Site Airport Rd. I-2-C 288

Source: www.westmemphis.com

These properties represent potential employment opportunities for citizens of West Memphis 

and the surrounding region. 

6.4 RELOCATIONS & DISPLACEMENTS

No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative will not displace and businesses or non-profit uses along the corridor. 

However, this alternative will not address the purpose and need of the proposed IRPLP project.

Build Alternative

The Build Alternative will not displace current businesses or non-profit uses within the Study 

Area. No relocations or displacement of existing operations would be required by the IRPLP 

project. The proposed improvements detailed by the Build Alternative will service existing 

industrial occupants and provide necessary infrastructure allowing future industrial users to

establish operations on undeveloped properties zoned for industrial uses. 
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 17

7.0 LITERATURE/SOURCES CITED

"Industrial Sites." West Memphis Economic Development. Web. 

 <www.westmemphis.com>.

“Runnin’ on the Levee”. Crittenden County Saddle Club. Web.

<www.crittendencountysaddleclub.com>

United States. Census Bureau. American Community Survey. Web. 

<http://www.census.gov/acs/www/>. 

USDOT 1998. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Washington, D.C.: 1998. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legregs/directives/orders/ 6640_23.htm (31 August 2004).
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts

October 2013 Appendix A
APPENDIX G 

Land Use Discipline Report 
International Rail Port Logistics Park 

City of West Memphis Arkansas

October 2013
Appendix G: Land Use, Zoning and 

Recreation Assessment

Submitted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act

(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c))

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Prepared by: URS Corporation

Franklin TN, USA

October 2013
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Land Use Zoning and Recreation

October 2013 i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of a land use, zoning and recreation assessment for the 

proposed International Rail Port Logistics Park (IRPLP) in West Memphis, Arkansas. 

The report includes an assessment of the existing land use, current zoning, recreation 

facilities and an evaluation of project-related impacts.

The study area is located south of the City of West Memphis in an existing industrial 

area that includes the Port of West Memphis. The City of West Memphis Zoning 

Ordinance was reviewed along with field observations to identify current and potential 

future land uses. 

The proposed IRPLP as currently designed would extend rail access to industrial and 

undeveloped property that is currently zoned for industrial use. The IRPLP also provides 

a transfer point for rail bound freight to maritime shipping operations on the Mississippi 

River.

The proposed IRPLP would expand rail infrastructure to underdeveloped industrial 

areas of the City of West Memphis and provide a connection to maritime freight 

handlers operating from the Port of West Memphis. No adverse impacts are to current 

or future land use or existing recreation facilities are expected as a result of the 

proposed IRPLP proposal. 
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Land Use Zoning and Recreation

October 2013 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................ii

TABLES......................................................................................................................................ii

FIGURES....................................................................................................................................ii

1.0 Study area and Methodology...........................................................................................2

1.1 Study area...................................................................................................................1

2.0 Sources Consulted ..........................................................................................................1

3.0 Zoning and Land Use ......................................................................................................1

3.1 Current Zoning and Existing Land USe........................................................................1

3.2 Recreation...................................................................................................................5

3.3 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................8

3.3.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................................................9

3.3.2 The Build Alternative............................................................................................9

4.0 Literature/sources cited ...................................................................................................9

TABLES

Table 1: Current Land Uses and Zoning for properties in the Project Area..................................4 

Table 2: Recreation Resources...................................................................................................5 

FIGURES

Figure 1: Land Uses within the Study Area .................................................................................2 

Figure 2: City of West Memphis Zoning Map...............................................................................3 

Figure 3: Zoning Near Project Area.............................................................................................4 

Figure 4: Public Parks.................................................................................................................6 
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Land Use Zoning and Recreation

October 2013 1 

1.0 STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY 

1.1 BACKGROUND, LOCATION AND LANDSCAPE

The IRPLP project is located in Crittenden County, south of the City of West Memphis, 

Arkansas. The project is strategically located near the Port of West Memphis, located 

on the Mississippi River, and existing rail infrastructure that serves nearby cotton 

warehouses and distribution centers. The surrounding landscape includes the 

Mississippi River and St. Francis Levee to the east, level agricultural property,

undeveloped industrial properties and developed industries along Port Road, Wyanoke 

Road and South Loop Road. 

1.2 STUDY AREA

The study area for the Proposed Action Alternative is the same as the IRPLP Project 

area (Figure 1) and is generally defined by the horizontal and vertical extent of the 

proposed rail alignment and associated improvements. Based on this horizontal and 

vertical extent, an additional 75-foot buffer measured from the edge of the footprint was 

applied. Potential mitigation sites were also included within the area studied. The 

vertical extent of disturbance includes the depths needed to excavate and grade in 

preparation for rail construction and construction of mitigation sites. For the most part, 

this is anticipated to be minor (a few feet). 

The study area includes all properties that would be bisected by the proposed rail 

alignment and any property that would be acquired to accommodate the proposed rail 

alignment, the proposed transload facility and proposed extension to Port Road.

2.0 SOURCES CONSULTED

Land use and zoning data were provided by the City of West Memphis, Office of 

Economic Development. The City of West Memphis Zoning Ordinance was 

downloaded from the City of West Memphis’ website (www.ci.west-memphis.ar.us). 

Recreational resources were documented through internet searches and confirmed 

during field visits. A complete list of sources is provided in Section 4.0 of this technical 

report.

3.0 ZONING AND LAND USE

3.1 CURRENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE

The City of West Memphis maintains zoning authority over properties located within the 

study area that are within the city and has extraterritorial zoning authority over specific 

tracts of land located outside of the current city limits. Extraterritorial zoning is identified 

by the presence of an “E” at the end of the zoning designation. The study area contains 

properties that are zoned I-2-C-E (General Industrial - Intermodal Container Storage 

Yard). However, many of these industrially zoned properties are currently used for 

agriculture or undeveloped open space. 
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Land Use Zoning and Recreation

October 2013 2 

Approximately 83 percent of the Study Area consists of agricultural properties or cleared 

open space that is zoned I-2-C-E. Industrial property makes up the next largest 

category of land uses in the study area at 12.61 percent and forested lands make up 

approximately 4.91 percent as depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Land Uses within the Study Area

The nearest residential area is located 1770-feet north of the proposed improvements 

beyond the intersection of Dabbs Avenue and Port Road. This residential neighborhood 
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Land Use Zoning and Recreation

October 2013 3 

is a mix of single- and multi-family residences that are zoned R-2 (Low Density 

Residential) and R-4 (Medium Density Residential). 

Figure 2: City of West Memphis Zoning Map

Source: City of West Memphis Zoning Map, May 2013

Properties south of Dabbs Avenue along Avalon Street and Port Road are generally 

industrial in nature and zoned I-2 (General Industrial). The I-2 zoning district allows for 

heavier or more intense industrial uses. Regulations for the I-2 district are the minimum 

required for mutual protection of industrial users and for the safety and general welfare 

of the citizens of West Memphis and surrounding districts. This area also contains large 

undeveloped and agricultural tracts that are zoned I-2-C (General Industrial – 

Intermodal Container Storage Yard). The I-2-C district permits all uses allowed in the I2 district and is created for the purpose of allowing the storage of shipping containers 

that have the capability of being stacked. These undeveloped properties are anticipated 

to be developed as industrial properties by future developers. A listing of current land 

uses and associated zoning is included in Table 1. The current zoning map and adopted 

plans for the City of West Memphis support the proposed location of the IRPLP.

General Project 

Area.
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Land Use Zoning and Recreation

October 2013 4 

Table 1: Current Land Uses and Zoning for properties in the Project Area

Sources: Property Ownership Map City of West Memphis – TIGER Project Crittenden County, Arkansas (Aug., 2013). 

Prepared by: Sorrell Consulting Engineers

City of West Memphis Zoning Map, May 2013 

Figure 3: Zoning Near Project Area

Source: City of West Memphis Zoning Map, May 2013

Facility Parcel Number Land Use Zoning

Riverbend Distribution 

Center

376722000000 Warehouse/Distribution I2CE

West Memphis School 

District

104058050000 Unimproved/Forested I2CE

Cox Properties 1014118000000, 

104124500000, & 

395069000000,

Unimproved/Agricultural I2 & I2CE

FSLD, LLC 201000000800 Rail Spur/Container Transfer Station I2CE

Tandem Leasing 

Corporation

104125300000 Industrial I2CE

TETRA® Technologies, 

Inc.

104125200000 Industrial Oil & Gas Services I2CE

Diaz Intermediates 

Corporation

104125250000 Chemical Supplier I2CE

J.M.C. West Memphis, 

LLC (Stateside Wire)

104125400000 & 

104124500100

Chain Link Fence Fabrication I2CE

Franklin Real Estate 

(American Electric Power)

104285000000 & 

104126000000

Undeveloped/Agricultural I2CE

General Project 

Area.
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Land Use Zoning and Recreation

October 2013 5 

3.2 RECREATION

3.2.1 PUBLIC PARKS

The City of West Memphis manages a robust park system that includes small 

neighborhood parks, expansive athletic complexes and a greenway. City-managed 

recreational resources are located outside of the study area, north of the project in 

closer proximity to established residential areas. Crittenden County does not own or 

operate any parks within the study area.

Table 2: Recreation Resources

Park Name Location Amenities Used by 

Project? 

(Y/N)

Within 

Study Area? 

(Y/N)

Tilden Rodgers Park 825 N. Airport Rd. Sports complex N N 

Matthews Park Vanderbilt Ave. at

Rice St.

Lighted baseball field, 

picnic shelters, tennis 

courts, play area

N N

Hicks Park W. Oliver St. at N. 

Avalon St.

Play area and basketball 

court next to public 

library

N N 

Grimsley Park Balfour Rd. between 

Bellehaven Dr. & 

Belvedere Dr.

Play area, tennis court, 

picnic shelter and 

backstop

N N 

Worthington Park S. Worthington Dr. at 

Missouri St.

Picnic tables with grills, 

play area and volleyball 

net

N N 

Tenth Street Mini-Park 10th St. at E. Polk 

Ave.

Basketball court N N

Rowe Park N. 11th St. Picnic shelter, play area 

and basketball court

N N 

Horton Park Scottwood St. at 

Rosemary Ln.

Picnic Shelter, tennis 

court and play area

N N

Franklin Park S. 25th St. at S.L. 

Henry St.

Lighted softball field, 

basketball courts and 

play area

N N 

Hightower Park S. 14th St. between E. 

Broadway & E. Polk 

Ave.

Picnic Shelter, 

basketball court and 

play area

N N 

Martin Luther King Jr. 

Park

W. Service Rd. at N. 

Avalon St.

MATA park-and-ride, 

memorial fountain and 

pond

N N 

West Memphis 

Fairgrounds

Port Rd. Crittenden County 

Saddle Club 

N N 
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Land Use Zoning and Recreation

October 2013 6 

Figure 4: Public Parks
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Land Use Zoning and Recreation

October 2013 7 

3.2.2 WEST MEMPHIS FAIRGROUNDS

The West Memphis Fairgrounds are located east of Port Road and can be accessed 

from either Port Road or South Loop Road. This property is owned by the City of West 

Memphis and managed by the Crittenden County Saddle Club (CCSC) and hosts 

multiple horse shows and competitions throughout the year. The CCSC directs visitors 

to access the fairgrounds by taking Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard/South Loop 

Road from Interstate 40 to Port Road where the fairgrounds can be accessed at the 

main gate. 

West Memphis Fairgrounds Entrance from Port Road.
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Land Use Zoning and Recreation

October 2013 8 

West Memphis Fairgrounds as seen from South Loop Rd.

3.2.3 MISSISSIPPI RIVER TRAIL

The Mississippi River Trail (MRT) is a 3,000-mile bike trail that runs from the 

headwaters of the Mississippi River in Itasca, Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico 

(www.mississippirivertrail.org). Arkansas hosts 85 miles of the MRT from West 

Memphis to downtown Helena-West Helena. The MRT travels along Highway 70 

(Broadway) to the north of the study area before turning south on South Airport/Waverly 

Road which is located west of the study area. The proposed IRPLP project would not 

use any portion of the Mississippi River Trail or change its use and does not represent a 

4(f) impact. The portion of the MRT that is nearest the IRPLP is shown on Figure 4.

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Based on current zoning and land use within the study area, the IRPLP project would 

complement existing industrial uses and zoning. Presence of the IRPLP would expand 

intermodal freight opportunities within the region by connecting western freight lines to

maritime carriers operating along the Mississippi River.
International Rail Port Logistics Park Assessment of Land Use Zoning and Recreation

October 2013 9 

Access to the West Memphis Fairgrounds will need to be maintained from Port Road in 

order not to interfere with freight traffic traveling along South Loop Road. However, no 

temporary or permanent access restrictions are anticipated to be caused by the IRPLP 

project.

3.3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative would have no measurable impact on existing land use, zoning 

or recreation resources within the study area. However, without the proposed rail 

improvements and transload facility, the study area may not realize additional industrial 

development opportunities that would be induced by the construction and operation of 

the proposed IRPLP. 

3.3.2 THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

The IRPLP could spur industrial development in the study area by providing rail 

infrastructure to tracts of land that have been designated for industrial development by 

the City of West Memphis. Existing industrial facilities may expand current operations by 

taking advantage of improved rail and port services and capabilities. 

4.0 LITERATURE/SOURCES CITED

City of West Memphis, Arkansas. N.p., 09 May 2013. Web. 26 Sep 2013. <www.ci.westmemphis.ar.us>. 

Crittenden County Saddle Club. N.p., 26 Sep 2013. Web. 26 Sep 2013.

<www.crittendencountysaddleclub.org>.

Mississippi River Trail. Mississippi River Trail, Inc., 26 Sep 2013. Web. 26 Sep 2013. 

<www.mississippirivertrail.org>. 

West Memphis Zoning Ordinance. West Memphis, Arkansas: 2001. Print.
APPENDIX H 

Hazardous Materials Discipline Report 
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 

DISCIPLINE REPORT

IRPLP

West Memphis Arkansas

 

December 2013 

Prepared by

URS Corporation

URS Project No. 20500650 
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE 

ASSESSMENT SURVEY REPORT

IRPLP

WEST MEMPHIS ARKANSAS 

December 2013

1000 Corporate Centre Drive

Suite 250

Franklin, Tennessee 37067

(615) 771-2480

URS Project No. 20500650
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: i West Memphis, AR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 PURPOSE...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 DETAILED SCOPE-OF-SERVICES ............................................................................. 1

1.3 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................... 1

1.4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................ 2

1.7 VALIDITY .................................................................................................................... 2

1.8 DATA GAPS ................................................................................................................. 3

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................... 4

2.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION................................................................... 4

2.2 SITE AND VICINITY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................. 4

2.3 CURRENT SITE USE.................................................................................................... 4

2.4 DESCRIPTIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS........ 4

2.5 CURRENT ADJOINING PROPERTY USES ................................................................ 5

3.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION...................................................................................... 6

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS ..................... 6

3.2 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE ..................................................................................... 6

3.3 COMMONLY KNOWN INFORMATION..................................................................... 6

3.4 OBVIOUS INDICATORS ............................................................................................. 6

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD REVIEW.............................................................................. 7

4.1 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS ............................................................. 7

4.2 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCES................................................................................. 8

4.3 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT SITE AND ADJOINING 

PROPERTY................................................................................................................... 9

4.3.1 Historical Aerial Photographs ............................................................................ 9

4.3.3 Historic Topographic Maps................................................................................ 9

4.3.5 Previous Investigations ...................................................................................... 9

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE.................................................................................................... 10

5.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS................................................... 10

5.2 GENERAL SITE SETTING......................................................................................... 10

5.3 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS........................................................ 10

5.3.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products ................................................ 10

5.3.2 Storage Tanks.................................................................................................. 10

5.3.3 Odors............................................................................................................... 11

5.3.4 Pools of Liquid ................................................................................................ 11

5.3.5 Drums and Containers ...................................................................................... 11

5.3.6 Unidentified Substance Containers................................................................... 11

5.3.7 PCB-Containing Equipment............................................................................. 11

5.3.8 Emergency Generators..................................................................................... 11

5.3.9 Pits, Ponds, and Lagoons.................................................................................. 11

5.3.10 Stained Soil or Pavement ................................................................................. 12

5.3.11 Stressed Vegetation.......................................................................................... 12

5.3.12 Solid Waste ..................................................................................................... 12

5.3.13 Wastewater and Stormwater............................................................................. 12
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: ii West Memphis, AR

5.3.14 Wells............................................................................................................... 12

5.3.15 Septic Systems................................................................................................. 12

5.3.16 Heating or Cooling........................................................................................... 13

5.3.17 Stains or Corrosion .......................................................................................... 13

5.3.18 Drains and Sumps............................................................................................ 13

5.3.19 Presumed Asbestos-Containing Materials......................................................... 13

5.3.20 Lead Based Paint ............................................................................................. 13

5.4 ADJACENT FACILITY OBSERVATIONS. ...................................................................... 13

5.4.19 Presumed Asbestos-Containing Materials......................................................... 16

5.4.20 Lead Based Paint ............................................................................................. 16

6.0 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................... 17

6.1 FINDINGS................................................................................................................... 17

6.2 DEVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 17

7.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 18

8.0 NOMENCLATURE LIST...................................................................................................... 19

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location and Proposed Plan

APPENDICES 

Appendix I Regulatory Database Search Report

Appendix II Site Photographs 

Appendix III EDR Well Survey
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: iii West Memphis, AR

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

URS Corporation (URS) was retained by the City of West Memphis and Louis Dreyfus Corporation (LD) 

to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the IRPLP area located south of the City of 

West Memphis, Arkansas (subject property or site). The purpose of this Phase I ESA was to evaluate 

whether current or historical activities on or near the subject site may have resulted in significant impacts 

by hazardous substances or petroleum products, also known as recognized environmental conditions 

(RECs).

This Phase I ESA was performed in conformance with ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site 

Assessments (Standard E 1527-05) approved November 18, 2005. The Phase I ESA was completed for 

the City and LD as a part of the reporting requirement for the EA for this project. The scope of work did 

not include the collection and analysis of any samples including water, soil, paint, air or asbestos 

containing building materials. 

The subject property primarily consists of agricultural land along the proposed railway, a 20 acre tract on 

Port Road and the proposed six acre Transload Facility location at the south end of Port Road (Figure 1). 

The subject property is open agricultural land and includes one active farm operation (buildings, 

equipment, fuel storage). A total of three active and two non-active light industrial facilities adjoin the 

subject property. 

This assessment has revealed no potential RECs in connection with the subject site. However, the 

following low-level environmental concerns were identified in connection with the subject site:

Two 250 gallon above ground fuel storage tanks at the active farm used for gasoline and diesel fuel 

storage. The tanks do not have secondary containment and small areas of petroleum stained soil is 

present. It is URS’ opinion that the tanks do not represent a significant potential REC to the subject 

property; however, minor soil clean-up is warranted. 

Hazardous substances observed on-site, in the vicinity of the western, wooded portion of the subject 

property included: small quantities of paint-waste, paint thinner, several rusted paint cans, used 

appliances, a waste-tire, and other debris. No unusual odors or visible evidence of staining were 

associated with these waste materials during URS’ site reconnaissance. However, a small amount of 

paint was observed on bare soil in the same vicinity of the above-listed waste materials. URS 

recommends that the above solid waste materials be disposed of properly. URS further recommends the 

non-waste materials (rusted paint cans and paint thinner) that were observed on the ground be placed over 

concrete, under cover, in a manner consistent with good housekeeping practices. It is URS' opinion that 

the amount of paint waste observed in the vicinity of the hazardous materials stored onsite is “de 

minimis” in nature and not an environmental concern.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 1 West Memphis, AR

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

URS Corporation (URS) was retained by the City and LD to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site 

Assessment (ESA) of the rail alignment (approximately 50 acres), 20 acre parcel on Port Road, proposed 

Transload facility site area and adjoining property (subject property or site). The purpose of this Phase I 

ESA was to evaluate the potential current presence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) at the 

subject site, including potential impacts from known problems in the surrounding area. The term 

“recognized environmental conditions,” as defined by ASTM Designation E 1527-05, means: 

“The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a 

property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat 

of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures of the 

property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. The term 

includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance 

with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not 

present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would 

not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate 

governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not recognized 

environmental conditions.”

This Phase I ESA was performed in conformance with the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental 

Site Assessments (Standard E 1527-05) approved November 18, 2005. For the purpose of this report, 

hazardous substances and petroleum products are jointly referred to as “hazardous materials.”

1.2 DETAILED SCOPE-OF-SERVICES

The general scope of work for this Phase I ESA is outlined below. The Phase I ESA was completed for 

the City and LD in general accordance with the proposal to the City dated February 28, 2013. URS 

performed the following work:

• URS will conduct an on-line data search with a national database (Environmental Data 

Resources – EDR) to evaluate that potential for contamination at the site. 

• URS will also conduct a site walkover of the property to confirm any findings and make 

site observations related to waste disposal, underground storage tanks (USTs), and 

potential site contamination. 

• URS will interview stakeholders regarding the potential use or handling of hazardous 

materials.

1.3 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS

No significant assumptions other than those described below in the following section apply to this Phase I 

ESA.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 2 West Memphis, AR

1.4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS

This report and the associated work have been provided in accordance with the principles and practices 

generally employed by the local environmental consulting profession. This is in lieu of all warranties, 

expressed or implied.

This Phase I ESA is not a regulatory compliance audit or an evaluation of the efficiency of the use of any 

hazardous materials at the subject site. No evaluation for the presence of urea-formaldehyde foam 

insulation or other hazardous building materials; methane; radon gas; lead in drinking water; cultural and 

historic resources; industrial hygiene and health and safety; ecological resources and endangered species; 

indoor air quality; or high voltage power lines is included in our Phase I ESA.

URS’ findings are based on information available from public sources on specific dates (historical 

photographs, maps and regulatory agency files, lists, and databases); this information is changing 

continually and is frequently incomplete. Unless URS has actual knowledge to the contrary, information 

obtained from interviews or provided to URS by the City has been assumed to be correct and complete. 

URS does not assume any liability for information that has been misrepresented to us or for items not 

visible, accessible, or present on the subject site during the time of the site reconnaissance. URS assumes 

no obligation or responsibility for providing information that may become available after the completion 

of this report.

URS cannot warrant or guarantee that not finding indicators of hazardous materials means that hazardous 

materials do not exist on the subject site. There is no investigation thorough enough to preclude the 

presence of materials on the subject site, which presently, or in the future, may be considered hazardous. 

Because regulatory evaluation criteria are constantly changing, concentrations of contaminants present 

and considered to be acceptable may, in the future, become subject to different regulatory standards and 

require remediation.

Where records indicate that prior remedial work or tank removals have occurred there is the possibility 

that the work may not have been performed correctly or completely. In these cases, if the regulatory 

agency has approved the closure of the tank or other action, we have assumed that the work was done 

correctly and completely. Opinions and judgments expressed herein are based on URS’ understanding 

and interpretation of current regulatory standards, and should not be construed as legal opinions.

1.7 VALIDITY

This report was prepared in conformance with the ASTM Standard E 1527-05. The following 

components of this report must be updated after one hundred eighty (180) days of the date of this report if 

the property has not been acquired within that period of time:

1. Interviews with owners, operator and occupants;

2. Reviews of federal, state, and local government records;

3. Visual inspection of the property and of adjoining properties; and

5. The declaration of the environmental professional responsible for the assessment or update.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 3 West Memphis, AR

1.8 DATA GAPS

Historic aerial photographs or topographic maps were not reviewed for the subject property long term 

historic use. Interviews with owners and operators, and visual inspection indicated that historic site use

has been primarily for agricultural purposes. Because the site has been owned and operated primarily for 

agricultural use for decades, this data gap does not appear to be significant. 
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 4 West Memphis, AR

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION

The proposed logistics park upgrades consist of a 20 acre site on Port Road, approximately 3.76 

miles of new railroad tracks measuring approximately 50 feet wide (approximately 50 acres) and 

approximately 10 acres in the area of the proposed Transload facility. The subject property is 

located south of the City of West Memphis Arkansas in the Cities Industrial Park, Figure 1, Site Location. 

The site has been recently designated as the International Rail and Port Logistics Park (IRPLP).

2.2 SITE AND VICINITY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS 

The subject property consists of agricultural land south of Dabbs Road, west of 8th Street and Port Road, 

east of Ditch 19 and north of the northern end of Fletcher Lake. The surrounding area is a mix of 

agricultural and light industrial uses. The adjoining properties immediately to the north are residential 

and industrial and included in the City of West Memphis. To the west and south is agricultural land, with 

Fletcher Lake occupying much of the southern boundary. Immediately to the east is primarily agricultural 

land and municipal owned property with a large stormwater pond for the City on the northeast side. 

Further east the property is ultimately bordered by the St. Francis Levee and the Mississippi River. A 

Union Pacific (UP) railroad line services the current industrial park users. A farm property is located on 

the south end of the project area near where the proposed transload facility will be sighted. The farm is 

occupied by a caretaker during farming season.

2.3 CURRENT SITE USE

The active farm operation on the south end of the subject property utilizes aboveground storage tanks 

(ASTs) for diesel and gasoline storage for fueling farm equipment. Two tanks were observed with a 

capacity of 250 gallons each. In addition to fuel storage, oil, lubricants, herbicides and some pesticides 

have been stored at the farm. The 20 acre tract on Port Road was planted in row corps at the time of the 

May, 2013 site inspection. The 3.67 miles of proposed railroad line is all currently in agricultural use, 

woodlot or wetland. Two channelized ditches (streams) and three small drainages (wet weather 

conveyances) will be crossed by the proposed railway.

2.4 DESCRIPTIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

The subject property consists of agricultural land, woodlot, pasture, a farm operation and wetland. The 

project includes several miles of new railway, 13,500 feet of upgraded railway, a 20 acre parcel on Port 

Road and a six acre property designated for the new transload facility. A UP railroad line is located on 

the north end of the subject property and extends into the West Memphis Industrial Park to serve a 

number of light industrial properties. No structures are present on the proposed ROW of the new railway, 

in the 20 acre tract or transload facility. A short road extension to Port Road will be constructed to access 

the Transload facility and a conveyor will extend from the Transload facility to the top of the St. Francis 

Levee. 

The site was not connected to potable water or sanitary sewer services at the time of the site inspection. 

Electric service is provided by Okefenoke Rural Electric Membership Corporation (OREMC). 
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 5 West Memphis, AR

2.5 CURRENT ADJOINING PROPERTY USES

North

The subject property is bound by residential properties, warehousing and agricultural fields. North of the 

immediately adjoining property is primarily residential property on the south side of West Memphis. 

South

The subject property is bound on the south by agricultural property and Fletcher Lake. The 20 acre tract 

is bordered on the south by an inactive industrial site. 

West

The subject property is bound to the west by agricultural land, with the exception of the northeast corner. 

The northwest corner is occupied by cotton warehouses – River Bend Cotton. This is a relatively new 

facility. 

East

There are a number of properties located to the east of the subject site. Starting to the north of the east 

side these include:

• Warren Unilube Inc. Propane Storage;

• The Valero fuel storage terminal;

• The City of West Memphis wastewater treatment plant;

• West Memphis Rodeo Fairgrounds;

• The West Memphis Detention Pond; 

• A Entergy Substation;

• South Loop Road (which connects truck traffic to Interstates 40 and 51);

• Agricultural land (both row crops and pasture); 

• Industrial properties and the Port of West Memphis; and,

• Additional agricultural property.

URS did not identify other adjoining or surrounding properties within 1/8-mile known to pose significant 

environmental concerns to the subject site.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 6 West Memphis, AR

3.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION

As required by ASTM-E 1527-05, additional inquiries are required to be conducted by the User. These 

inquiries include: 

1. Identification of environmental cleanup liens against the subject property;

2. Specialized knowledge or experience regarding the subject property;

3. Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information regarding the subject property; and

4. Degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the subject property.

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS

Mr. Ward Wimbish, City of West Memphis Planning Director stated that he has no knowledge of 

environmental liens associated with the subject site or any use limitations affecting the subject site. 

3.2 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 

The City has not provided URS with any specialized knowledge associated with the subject property for 

inclusion into this report.

3.3 COMMONLY KNOWN INFORMATION 

The City has not provided URS with any commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about 

the property that would help the environmental professional to identify conditions indicative of releases or 

threatened releases. 

3.4 OBVIOUS INDICATORS 

The City has not provided URS with any knowledge and experience that they may have related to the 

property that there are any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of 

contamination at the property.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 7 West Memphis, AR

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD REVIEW

4.1 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) prepared a regulatory database search report on May 18, 2013 

in accordance with the ASTM recommended guidelines. The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck® Report 

includes a complete list of databases reviewed by EDR and is presented in Appendix A. The EDR report 

presents the results of a search of databases compiled by federal, state, and local governmental agencies, 

along with a description of each database, that list addresses of sites of known USTs; landfills; hazardous 

waste generation, treatment, storage and disposal facilities; and known subsurface contamination in the 

surrounding area up to and within the ASTM designated search radii of the subject site.

The following facilities are identified in the EDR site review:

1) Delisted NPL:1 – The South 8th Street landfill covers 30 acres in a mixed 

industrial/agricultural/residential area of West Memphis, Crittenden County, Arkansas. The privately 

owned site was an uncontrolled dump from the mid-1950s until it closed in 1979. The pits reportedly 

received wastes such as oil and grease sludge, sewage sludge, construction debris, chemical paint 

waste, and general house hold wastes. No records were kept of the amount or type of waste disposed 

on-site. This site is located west of the St. Francis Levee and is not likely to impact the subject 

property.

2) CERCLIS: 3 – 

a) The Colonels Factory Outlet of Arkansas Inc. located at 804 S.Wood St. West Memphis 

Arkansas. This site was not deemed an NPL site and no further action was determined necessary. 

This site preforms copper, nickel and chrome plating on recycled vehichle bumpers.

b) South 8th St. landfill site was evaluated as a superfund site in 1992. In 1995 a remedial 

investigation was conducted upon by the EPA. Remedial action was taken in1998 and as of 

September 2004 this site is no longer a listed national priority. This site is currently monitored by 

the EPA.

c) The Diaz Intermediates Corp. located at 301 Wyanoke Rd. West Memphis, Arkansas was 

investigated as a potential responsible party and was reffered for removal. No further action has 

been taken by the EPA towards Dias Intermediates Corp.

3) CERC-NFRAP: 1 – The Tenark Oil Corporation is located at 410 E. Jefferson St. West Memphis, 

Arkansas. This site was investigated in 1989 and in 1990 deemed NOT an NPL site and of low 

priority for futher investigation.

4) CORRACTS: 1

a) The Colonels Factory Outlet located at 804 S. Wood St. West Memphis Arkansas underwent the 

following actions under CORRACTS. Contaminated soil areas have been identified and 

groundwater migration has been verify UNDER CONTROL.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 8 West Memphis, AR

5) RCRA-CESQG: 2

a) Warren Unilube Inc. located at 915 Jefferson St. West Memphis, Arkansas received the 

designation of small quantity generator in 2008 where they were previously a large quantity 

generator. The hazardous waste code that correspond to generation at Warren Unilube Inc. are 

D001,D018, F003 & F005. This facility has been in violation only once in 1996. The conditions 

of the violation have been rectified.

b) Tetra Technologies Inc. located at 2201 Port Rd. West Memphis, Arkansas received the 

designation of verified non-generator in 1995, 2000, and 2008. These were the only dates with 

data availible. However, this site does contain hazardous wastes in small quantities these include 

waste code D001,D002 & D005.

6) Additional Ferderal records and their number of listings include RCRA NonGen/ NLR: (8), US ENG 

CONTROLS: (1), ERNS: (11), HMIRS: (1), ROD: (1), TRIS: (2), TSCA: (2), SSTS: (2), ICIS: (2), 

FINDS: (10), RMP: (2), 2020 COR ACTION: (2)

7) State and local records and their numbers of listing are as follows: AR LTANKS: (2), AR SPILLS: 

(5), AR AIRS: (2), AR PERMITS: (4), EDR US HIST AUTO STAT: (2)

8) AR UST:2

a) There are underground storage tanks listed at Choctaw Inc. located at 501 E. Jefferson St. Fort 

Smith Arkansas. This site contains four retired deisel storage tanks. They were declaired 

permanently out of service in 1991. The tanks were (1) a steel fabricated tank that held 4000 

gallons in a single compartment, (2) a steel fabricated tank that held 6000 gallons in a single 

compartment, (3) a steel fabricated tank that held 1000 gallons in a single compartment, and (4) a 

tank of unknown material that claims a capacity of 99,999,999 gallons.

b) There are underground storage tanks listed at Forbes Steel & Wire Corporation located at 981 

South 8th St. West Memphis Arkansas. This site contains 2 gasoline and 1 deisel storage tanks. 

The tanks are single compartment steel construction tanks of capacities 1000, 4000, and 10000 

gallons. These tanks are all listed as out of service as of 1992.

9) AR AST:3

a) There are 88 above ground storage tanks at Warren Unilube Inc. located at 915 E. Jefferson St. 

West Memphis, Arkansas. Of the 88 petroleum storage tanks on site only 39 are in use leaving 49 

unused tanks. The total capacity of the tanks currently in use is 374,265 gallons.

b) There are 33 above ground storage tanks at the Warren Unilube Inc. facility located at 1200 S. 8th

St. West Memphis, Arkansas. Of the 33 petroleum tanks 23 are still in use leaving 10 unused 

tanks. The total capacity currently in use is 462,902 gallons.

4.2 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCES

The subject site is located on the Fletcher Lake, Tenn.-Ark. Quadrangle 7.5-minute topographic map 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 1993). Elevation of the subject site is approximately 210 feet above mean sea 

level based on National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The subject property is very flat and the site 
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 9 West Memphis, AR

vicinity slopes gently towards the west-southwest. Site specific drainage appeared to be to the westsouthwest toward the man-made ditches and the Fletcher Lake area.

If shallow groundwater flow mimics surface topography, it appears that the general direction of shallow 

groundwater flow at the site will vary.

URS reviewed wetlands information provided by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands 

Inventory (NWI) on the EDR Radius Map Report. State and Federal mapped wetlands are located near 

the southwestern portions of the subject property. The project may impact wetlands associated with 

Fletcher Lake. The only way to determine if any portion of the subject site is located within a federal or 

state (jurisdictional) wetland is to have an additional wetland delineation (assessment) performed.

4.3 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT SITE AND ADJOINING 

PROPERTY

4.3.1 Historical Aerial Photographs

Historic aerial photographs were not obtained due to the determination that the area had been cropland or 

wilderness since before 1940. This is based on discussions with the site residents and City officials. 

4.3.3 Historic Topographic Maps

URS determined that is was not necessary to obtain historical topographical maps because the site has not 

under gone notable geological change since the St. Francis Levee was built in 1895.

No potential RECs were identified during the topographic map review.

4.3.5 Previous Investigations

No previous investigations have been conducted at the subject property and the City did not provide any 

other previous environmental assessments (investigations) for URS’ review.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 10 West Memphis, AR

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

5.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

URS conducted the site reconnaissance on August 14, 2013. No property owner accompanied URS

representatives, Craig Bernhoft and Hayden Orr during the site reconnaissance. URS did meet with the 

local farm manager, Mr. Joe Miller. Mr. Miller was interviewed about the project area. Weather 

conditions at the time were sunny with a temperature of approximately 85° Fahrenheit. Photographs 

taken during the site reconnaissance are presented in Appendix B. 

URS conducted the site reconnaissance by visually observing the land proposed for the subject property, 

farm buildings in the area of the transload facility and adjoining facilities. Surrounding properties were 

viewed from adjacent public right-of-ways. 

5.2 GENERAL SITE SETTING

The subject property consists of agricultural on the south and western side; the St. Francis Levee and 

Mississippi River to the east, and the City of West Memphis AR to the north. The site consists of mostly 

agricultural land, but immediately adjacent to the site is a facility that assembles and treats chain linked 

fencing. The agricultural sections of the property seemed to be planted in wheat or soy beans. Ditch 17 

ran through the middle of the property from east to west. South of the subject property was a wooded 

wetland area (Fletcher Lake) that frequently floods. Further to the west were additional crop fields and 

farm houses. North of the property there is the City of West Memphis and a Coca cola bottling facility. 

Also on the site is a small farm house and equipment shop. There is evidence of common farm activities 

including fertilizing, vehicle maintenance, and pest/weed control.

5.3 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS

The small farming operation that is currently on site stored diesel fuel in above ground containers. There 

was an area next to one of the barns where old containers strewn about. The containers held the remnants 

of fertilizers, motor oils, and herbicides. There were also several large above ground water tanks on the 

small farm site. The remainder of the site property occupied crop land, woodlot or wetland.

5.3.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products

URS did not observe large aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) used for storage of large volumes of 

petroleum or chemicals during the site inspection. 

It is URS' opinion that management of hazardous substances, specifically fuel storage tanks, at the subject 

property is not a REC. 

5.3.2 Storage Tanks

Visible evidence of underground storage tanks (USTs) (i.e. vent pipes or fill-ports) was not observed 

during URS’ site reconnaissance. It is URS’ opinion that USTs do not represent a potential REC to the 

subject property.

The only ASTs observed at the subject property were the water and diesel fuel tanks previously-discussed 

above in Section 5.3.1. No other ASTs were observed or reported at the subject property.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 11 West Memphis, AR

5.3.3 Odors

No hazardous waste or petroleum odors were detected during site inspection.

It is URS’ opinion that odors do not represent a potential REC to the subject property.

5.3.4 Pools of Liquid

No pools of liquid were observed on the subject site.

It is URS’ opinion that pools of liquid do not represent a potential REC to the subject property.

5.3.5 Drums and Containers

In the area next to the road before the small commercial farm house there were several smaller 2-3 gallon 

containers and 9-55 gallon drums. These 55-gallon steel drums were observed to be empty, unlabeled, 

and in poor condition (rusted and punctured). It was located on the western portion of the subject 

property in a vegetated (wooded) area. No distressed vegetation or stained soils were observed in the 

vicinity of these unidentified containers. The area where the farm vehicles were maintained housed a used 

oil container (~200 gal) and diesel fuel tanks (~200 gal). No other containers were observed during the 

site reconnaissance.

It is URS’ opinion drums and containers do not represent a potential REC to the subject property.

5.3.6 Unidentified Substance Containers

The only unidentified substance container observed during the site reconnaissance was previouslydiscussed above in Section 5.3.5. 

It is URS’ opinion that the unidentified substance container does not represent a potential REC to the 

subject property.

5.3.7 PCB-Containing Equipment

No pad or pole-mounted transformers were observed at the subject property. 

No additional potential PCB-containing equipment was observed during the site visit.

It is URS’ opinion that PCB-containing equipment does not represent a potential REC to the subject 

property.

5.3.8 Emergency Generators

The site does not maintain emergency generators.

It is URS’ opinion that emergency generators do not represent a potential REC to the subject property.

5.3.9 Pits, Ponds, and Lagoons

There is a wetland area south of the site. Also, a large drainage ditch runs west to east through the site. 

There are many smaller drainages and low lying areas that collect standing water. There are also 

stormwater detention ponds from the fence assembly plant and from a cotton facility in West Memphis. 

The proposed project would not impact man-made pits, ponds or lagoons. Impacts to wetlands are 

discussed in the Ecological Survey Report. 

It is URS’ opinion that pits, ponds, and lagoons do not represent a potential REC to the subject property.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 12 West Memphis, AR

5.3.10 Stained Soil or Pavement

In the area of the small farm where the farm vehicles were maintained there was evidence of lubricating 

oil and hydraulic fluid leaks in the soil.

It is URS’ opinion that stained soil or gravel represents a potential REC to the subject property. It is 

assumed that a minor amount of soil removal may be required. 

5.3.11 Stressed Vegetation

Visible evidence of stressed vegetation was not observed on the subject site.

It is URS’ opinion that stressed vegetation does not represent a potential REC to the subject property.

5.3.12 Solid Waste

Solid waste was not being generated at the subject property during the site reconnaissance, other than 

minor farm related garbage. Other evidence of solid waste disposal was limited to small quantities of 

herbicide, pesticide, several rusted paint cans,, a waste-tire, and other debris observed in the vicinity of 

the western portion of the subject property. There was evidence of waste burn piles on the small farm 

site. The burn areas discolored the soil in a manner associated with a small fire pit. URS recommends 

that the above solid wastes be disposed of properly.

It is URS’ opinion that solid waste does not represent a potential REC to the subject property.

5.3.13 Wastewater and Stormwater

Waste water was being generated by the industries adjacent to the site (Steel and Chemical). Both were 

producing enough water to generate flow in the discharge ditches. Storm water on the site would be 

handled by the network of ditches around the crop fields. Also, storm water would flow to the wetland 

area south of the property if it was not captured and directed to the main drainage ditch. It is URS’ 

opinion that wastewater and stormwater do not represent potential RECs to the subject property.

5.3.14 Wells

Visible indications of monitoring wells and/or potable or production water supply wells were observed 

and reported on the subject site (see EDR Well Map and Report, Appendix C). A total of eight private 

wells and no public wells are located within one mile of the subject property according to the record 

search. Most of these wells are south and west of the proposed railway. Two of the eight are located 

north of the project in residential area. The site is connected to potable water service at the time of the 

site inspection and utilized by the local industrial users. 

It is URS’ opinion that wells do not represent a potential REC to the subject property.

5.3.15 Septic Systems

At the small commercial farm house the septic system was minimally covered by plywood sheets. It did 

not appear that it had been used in some time, as this is not a permanent residence.. Other farmhouses on 

or near the site had properly operated septic systems, or were part of the City of West Memphis sewer 

system. 

It is URS’ opinion that septic systems do not represent a potential REC to the subject property.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 13 West Memphis, AR

5.3.16 Heating or Cooling

The small farm house had an old window unit air conditioner. The adjacent industries had large central 

heating and cooling units. 

It is URS’ opinion that heating and cooling do not represent a potential REC to the subject property.

5.3.17 Stains or Corrosion

Visible evidence of soil stains was observed during URS’ site reconnaissance. As noted above, these 

stains were directly related to the vehicle maintenance preformed in the area of the small farm house. 

These stains are believed to be motor oil and are in small quantities. There were no signs of corrosion 

observed during site reconnaissance. Dense vegetation in the farm fields, cultivated soil, roads and other 

areas inspected over the 3.6 mile area of the proposed railway did not have notable stains or corrosion.

It is URS’ opinion that stains and corrosion do not represent a potential REC to the subject property.

5.3.18 Drains and Sumps 

Visible evidence of drains or sumps was not observed during URS’ site reconnaissance.

It is URS’ opinion that drains and sumps do not represent a potential REC to the subject property.

5.3.19 Presumed Asbestos-Containing Materials

The old farm house did not appear to have asbestos containing insulation or materials (ACMs). There is 

an older industrial building adjacent to the site on the north side that may contain asbestos containing 

materials. None of these industrial buildings were considered to be directly affected by the proposed site 

development. Therefore, no presumed asbestos-containing materials (PACM) were observed during 

URS’ site reconnaissance. In the event buildings will be demolished for the project, they will be inspected 

for ACMs and properly disposed of.

It is URS’ opinion that presumed asbestos containing materials do not represent a potential environmental 

concern to the subject property.

5.3.20 Lead Based Paint

Similar to ACMs, lead based paint may be part of buildings that would be demolished as part of this 

project. In the event buildings will be demolished for the project, they will be inspected for lead based 

paint and properly disposed of. It is URS’ opinion that presumed lead based paint do not represent a 

potential environmental concern to the subject property.

5.4 ADJACENT FACILITY OBSERVATIONS.

The facilities that are adjacent to the future rail loop construction area that are of interest include the wire 

manufacturing company, and the companies that handle petroleum products Warren Unilube and Valero 

Oil Company. All observations of the adjacent properties were made from beyond the property lines so all 

of the detail needed could not be obtained. This section uses combined reconnaissance and EDR data to 

discuss adjacent properties.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 14 West Memphis, AR

i. Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products

As noted above the main concern for hazardous or petroleum products at adjacent 

properties are with Warren Unilube’s propane storage tank yard and with the Valero Oil 

Co. facility. According to the EDR Warren Unilube has a combined 121 ASTs at its two 

sites in West Memphis. A little over half of the tanks are still in use and those tanks have 

a combine capacity of over 500,000 gallons. 

ii. Storage Tanks

Warren Unilube maintains 121 ASTs, and there are USTs adjacent to the project area but 

all of them are no longer in use. The companies that have retired USTs are Choctaw Inc. 

and Forbes Steel & Wire Corp.

iii. Odors 

There is a notable odor downwind of the Forbes Steel & Wire Corp. facility but its source 

was unidentifiable from beyond the boundary fence. No other odors were noted during 

the site walk through.

iv. Pools of Liquid

There were no pools of liquid noted during the site walk through.

v. Drums and Containers

There were no drums or containers noted at adjacent properties during the site walk 

through. These items are typically kept inside or at the very least in a covered area.

vi. Unidentified Substance Containers

There were no unidentified substance containers noted during the site walk through.

vii. PCB Containing Equipment

Pole mounted transformers were noted at adjacent sites to the project area, however, as 

they are adjacent to the site area they are not considered an impedance to project 

activities at this time.

viii. Emergency Generators

There were no emergency generators noted at adjacent properties during the site walk 

through.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 15 West Memphis, AR

ix. Pits, Ponds, and Lagoons

Settling ponds or lagoons were noted at the Forbes Steel & Wire Corp. facility and at the 

cotton warehouses. 

x. Stained Soil or Pavement

There were no stains noted on soil or pavement of adjacent properties during the site 

walk through.

xi. Stressed Vegetation

There were no signs of stressed vegetation noted during the site walk through.

xii. Solid Waste

There were no signs of solid waste accumulation on adjacent properties during the site 

walk through.

xiii. Waste Water and Storm Water

Waste water and storm water streams flowed out from the Forbes Steel & Wire Corp. and 

from the cotton warehousing area into the path of the projected rail line expansion. A 

evidenced from the healthy looking vegetation and wildlife in these streams URS does 

not suspect there are any hazardous materials in these streams. 

xiv. Wells

There were no wells noted on adjacent sites during the site walk through.

xv. Septic Systems

There were no signs of exposed septic systems or drain fields at adjacent sites during the 

site walk through.

xvi. Heating and Cooling

All adjacent industry facilities maintained central heating and cooling units. 

xvii. Stains and Corrosion

All adjacent facilities seemed to be in good repair where they could be observed.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 16 West Memphis, AR

xviii. Drains and Sumps

Drain and sump configurations of adjacent facilities could not be studied in detail during 

the site walk through.

5.4.19 Presumed Asbestos-Containing Materials

All adjacent facilities were presumed to not contain asbestos containing materials. 

5.4.20 Lead Based Paint

The presence of lead based paint at adjacent facilities was not evident during site walk 

through.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 17 West Memphis, AR

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

URS has developed and performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of 

ASTM Practice E1527-05 for the proposed railway, a 20 acre tract on Port Road and the proposed 

Transload Facility area. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in the limitations 

sections of this report.

6.1 FINDINGS

This assessment has revealed no potential RECs in connection with the subject site. However, the 

following low-level environmental concerns were identified in connection with the subject site:

The farm operation area managed by Mr. Miller includes a number of low-level environmental concerns. 

These areas include:

1. Aboveground diesel fuel storage tanks (2-250 gallon);

2. Stained soils in the area of vehicle and equipment lubrication and maintenance;

3. Scattered 5-gallon and smaller containers (generally empty) of lubricants, herbicides, pesticides 

and oils.

Large volume herbicide and pesticide storage use was not observed at the farm. Large volume 

application is performed by air-application in the area (Miller, personnel communication).

Areas of the proposed rail were walked for evidence of environmental contamination. No stained areas, 

chemical odors, containers or other signs of contamination were observed.

Adjoining properties include a metal fabricator and chemical company. Stormwater runoff, cooling water 

and other drainage from these properties flows into the drainage ditches and south to Fletcher Lake. No 

obvious signs of staining, sheen, or odors were observed at the time of the site inspection. 

Past and current use of the adjoining properties as industrial users, stained soils and fuel containers at the 

Miller Farm warrant limited Phase II investigation to determine what level of clean-up may be needed, if 

any, prior to construction on the subject property.

6.2 DEVIATIONS

No deviations occurred from the Scope of Services for the Phase I ESA.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 18 West Memphis, AR

7.0 REFERENCES

ASTM, 2005. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard E Section, "Standard 

Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process," 

November 2005.

USEPA, 2005. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 40 CFR Part 312 “Standards and 

Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries,” November 1, 2005.

City of West Memphis, 1995, Environmental Assessment South Loop.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment IRPLP

URS Job No.: 19 West Memphis, AR

8.0 NOMENCLATURE LIST

ACBM Asbestos Containing Building Material

ASTM American Society For Testing and Materials

AUL Activity and Use Limitation

BCA Brantley County Assessor

BRS RCRA Biennial Reporting System

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, and Liability Information System

CORRACTS Corrective Action Report

EDR Environmental Data Resources

ESA Environmental Site Assessment

ERNS Emergency Response Notification System

GDNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

LQG Large Quantity Generator

NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NPL National Priorities List

OPRA Open Public Records Act

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PCS Permit Compliance System

REC Recognized Environmental Condition

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System

SHWS State Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Trust Fund Priority List

SPL Spill List

SQG Small Quantity Generator

SWF/LF Solid Waste Facility Permit Database

SWRCY Solid Waste Recycling Directory

TRI Toxicity Chemical Release Inventory

UST Underground Storage Tank

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS United States Geological Survey

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
FIGURES

APPENDIX I 

Regulatory Database Search Report

Executive Summary Only

Complete report 400 pages
















APPENDIX II

Photolog
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG 

Client Name: City of West Memphis Site Location: Project No. 

20500648.00001 

Photo No. 

1

Date: 

8/2013 

Description: 

Sump at Dabbs 

Road and RR 

crossing 

Photo No. 

2

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

RR crossing at 

Dabbs Ave. and 

Port Road facing 

east. 
Photo No. 

3

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

RR crossing at 

Dabbs Ave. Port 

Rd. facing south 

down Port Rd. 

Photo No. 

4

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Stormwater Drain 

south side of River 

Bend Cotton facing 

NE. 
Photo No. 

5

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Cotton Warehouse 

at BNSF Crossover 

location. 

Photo No. 

6

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Work Trailer north 

of FSLD Property 
Photo No. 

7

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

North side of 

Stateside Steel 

facing southeast. 

Photo No. 

8

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

South side of Diaz 

Intermediates 

facing north. 
Photo No. 

9

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

East side of Tetra 

Technologies 

facing west off Port 

Road. 

Photo No. 

10

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Storage Building 

used by Stateside 

facing west from 

Port Road. 
Photo No. 

11

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Northeast side of 

building in Photo 10 

on Stateside Wire 

Property. 

Photo No. 

12

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

TETRA 

Technologies off 

Port Road. 
Photo No. 

13

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Allied Universal 

Corp sign on Port 

Road facing NW, 

south of 20 acre 

Cox Property. 

Photo No. 

14

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Allied Universal 

property. 
Photo No. 

15

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Ditch 17, facing 

west from RR 

Bridge. 

Photo No. 

16

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Valero Terminal 

Storage Tanks and 

Warren Unilube Inc. 

off South Loop 

Road. 
Photo No. 

17

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

South side of 

Warren Unilube Inc. 

From South Loop 

Rd. facing north. 

Photo No. 

18

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Drainage ditch on 

north side of 20 

acre Cox property 

facing west. 
Photo No. 

19

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Valero Terminal 

Storage area from 

South Loop Rd 

facing west. 

Photo No. 

20

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Agricultural field 

north of Miller Farm 

facing NE. 
Photo No. 

21

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

1000 gallon diesel 

fuel storage at 

Farm on AEP 

property. 

Photo No. 

22

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Equipment 

maintenance area 

at Farm on AEP 

property. 
Photo No. 

23

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Farm located south 

of proposed 

Transload Facility 

Photo No. 

24

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

AST cradle – 

background steel 

tower foreground 

on Stateside Steel, 

near Port Road. 
Photo No. 

25

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

AST cradle 

Stateside property 

near Port Rd. 

Photo No. 

26

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Stateside Steel 

boneyard. 
Photo No. 

27

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Stateside steel 

warehouse near 

Port Rd. 

Photo No. 

28

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Stateside Steel 

warehouse. 
Photo No. 

29

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Material in open 

near Stateside 

Steel warehouse. 

Photo No. 

30

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Storage tank at 

Stateside Steel 

warehouse. 
Photo No. 

31

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

3,000 gallon water 

AST at farm on 

AEP property. 

Photo No. 

32

Date: 

08/13 

Description: 

Water well at farm 

on AEP 
Photo No. 

33

Date: 

08/13

Description: 

Spray equipment at 

Farm on AEP. 

Photo No. 

34

Date: 

08/13

Description: 

Interior of the farm 

house on AEP 

property. 

Maintenance 

equipment with 

chemicals and shop 

equipment scattered 

about. 
Photo No. 

35

Date: 

08/13

Description: 

Oil stained gravel at 

Farm on AEP. 

 

Photo No. 

36

Date: 

08/13

Description: 

Oil stained parking 

area at Farm at 

AEP. 
Photo No. 

37 Date: 

08/13

Description: 

 ~200 gal diesel fuel 

tank at Farm on 

AEP. 

Photo No. 

38

Date: 

08/13

Description: 

Tractor with a 

chemical sprayer 

attached. 
Photo No. 

39

Date: 

08/13

Description: 

Chemical sprayer 

attached at farm on 

AEP. 
APPENDIX III

EDR Well Survey
tropeR hcraeS lleW TMpaMataD RDE

440 Wheelers Farms Road

Milford, CT 06461

Toll Free: 800.352.0050

www.edrnet.com

International Rail Port Logistics Park

West Memphis, AR 72301

Inquiry Number: 3600478.1w

May 08, 2013
Thank you for your business.

Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050

with any questions or comments.

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice

This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data

Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from

other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL

DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,

MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,

ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,

CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY

LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,

environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor

should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I

Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any

property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Copyright 2013 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole

or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.

EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other

trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC3600478.1w Page 1 of 2

_________ ___ ________ _____ ______ __ ______________ _______________

Total Meas Mean Geom mean Median Std Dev Max % Sites>4 pCi/L % Sites>20 pCi/L

Radon Test Results 

State Database: AR Radon 

Basement 0.100 pCi/L 100% 0% 0%

Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported

Living Area - 1st Floor 0.570 pCi/L 100% 0% 0%

Area Average Activity % <4 pCi/L % 4-20 pCi/L % >20 pCi/L

Number of sites tested: 10

Federal Area Radon Information for Zip Code: 72301

AREA RADON INFORMATION

 35090-B2 WEST MEMPHIS, AR TN

 35090-A2 FLETCHER LAKE, AR TN

USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP(S)

NO WELLS FOUND

PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION

NO WELLS FOUND

STATE WATER WELL INFORMATION

MAP WELL

ID ID

 8 USGS40000090342

 7 USGS40000090449

 6 USGS40000090519

 6 USGS40000090518

 5 USGS40000090702

 5 USGS40000090701

 4 USGS40000090740

 3 USGS40000121189

 2 USGS40000121494

 1 USGS40000121503

FEDERAL DATABASE WELL INFORMATION

MAP WELL

ID ID

GEOCHECK VERSION 2.1

SUMMARY
TC3600478.1w Page 2 of 2

Basement 1.356 pCi/L 100% 0% 0%

Living Area - 2nd Floor 0.000 pCi/L 100% 0% 0%

Living Area - 1st Floor 1.025 pCi/L 99% 1% 0%

Area Average Activity % <4 pCi/L % 4-20 pCi/L % >20 pCi/L

Number of sites tested: 117

Federal Area Radon Information for SHELBY COUNTY, TN

 : Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L.

 : Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi/L and <= 4 pCi/L.

 Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L.

Federal EPA Radon Zone for SHELBY County: 3 

SHELBY 31 1.1 312.5 0 0 0 0 0

_____ __________ ____ _______ _________ __________ __________ ___________ __________

County Total Sites Avg Max <4 pCi/L 4-10 pCi/L 10-20 pCi/L 20-50 pCi/L 50-100 pCi/L >100 pCi/L

Radon Test Results 

State Database: TN Radon 

Basement 0.100 pCi/L 100% 0% 0%

Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported

Living Area - 1st Floor 0.564 pCi/L 100% 0% 0%

Area Average Activity % <4 pCi/L % 4-20 pCi/L % >20 pCi/L

Number of sites tested: 14

Federal Area Radon Information for CRITTENDEN COUNTY, AR

 : Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L.

 : Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi/L and <= 4 pCi/L.

 Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L.

Federal EPA Radon Zone for CRITTENDEN County: 3 

18 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 01.5 0

AREA RADON INFORMATION

GEOCHECK VERSION 2.1

SUMMARY
TC3600478.1w Page 1 of 6

Longitude: -90.1800943 Sourcemap scale: 24000

Contrib drainagearea units: Not Reported Latitude: 35.1431464

Drainagearea Units: Not Reported Contrib drainagearea: Not Reported

Huc code: 08010100 Drainagearea value: Not Reported

Monloc desc: Not Reported

Monloc type: Well

Monloc name: 06N09E18BAC1

Monloc Identifier: USGS-350835090104801

Formal name: USGS Arkansas Water Science Center

Org. Identifier: USGS-AR

Map ID: 2

1973-03-13 33.93 1942 -3.00

1975-04-08 31.75 1974-03-26 33.64

1977-03-25 35.95 1976-03-18 31.85

1979-03-13 60.75 1978-03-30 54.55

1980-03-27 58.53 1979-08-17 57.14

1982-03-16 49.56 1981-04-08 56.95

Date

Feet below

Surface

Feet to

Sealevel

-------------------------------------------------

Date

Feet below

Surface

Feet to

Sealevel

-------------------------------------------------

Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 12

Wellholedepth units: Not Reported

Welldepth units: ft Wellholedepth: Not Reported

Construction date: 19300101 Welldepth: 1504

Aquifer type: Not Reported

Formation type: Wilcox Group

Aquifername: Mississippi embayment aquifer system

Vert coord refsys: NGVD29 Countrycode: US

Vertcollection method: Interpolated from topographic map

Vert accmeasure units: feet

Vert measure units: feet Vertacc measure val: 2.5

Horiz coord refsys: NAD83 Vert measure val: 210.00

Horiz Collection method: Interpolated from map

Horiz Acc measure: 5 Horiz Acc measure units: seconds

Longitude: -90.1831499 Sourcemap scale: 24000

Contrib drainagearea units: Not Reported Latitude: 35.1453686

Drainagearea Units: Not Reported Contrib drainagearea: Not Reported

Huc code: 08020203 Drainagearea value: Not Reported

Monloc desc: Not Reported

Monloc type: Well

Monloc name: 06N09E18BBB1

Monloc Identifier: USGS-350843090105901

Formal name: USGS Arkansas Water Science Center

Org. Identifier: USGS-AR

Map ID: 1

Water Well Information:

GEOCHECK VERSION 2.1

STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
TC3600478.1w Page 2 of 6

Map ID: 4

1957-09-30 13.54

Date

Feet below

Surface

Feet to

Sealevel

-------------------------------------------------

Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 1

Wellholedepth units: Not Reported

Welldepth units: ft Wellholedepth: Not Reported

Construction date: 18991231 Welldepth: 37.9

Aquifer type: Not Reported

Formation type: Quaternary Alluvium

Aquifername: Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer

Vert coord refsys: NGVD29 Countrycode: US

Vertcollection method: Interpolated from topographic map

Vert accmeasure units: feet

Vert measure units: feet Vertacc measure val: 2.5

Horiz coord refsys: NAD83 Vert measure val: 215.00

Horiz Collection method: Interpolated from map

Horiz Acc measure: 5 Horiz Acc measure units: seconds

Longitude: -90.1773165 Sourcemap scale: 126720

Contrib drainagearea units: Not Reported Latitude: 35.1014807

Drainagearea Units: Not Reported Contrib drainagearea: Not Reported

Huc code: 08020203 Drainagearea value: Not Reported

Monloc desc: Not Reported

Monloc type: Well

Monloc name: 06N08E26CDA1

Monloc Identifier: USGS-350605090103801

Formal name: USGS Arkansas Water Science Center

Org. Identifier: USGS-AR

Map ID: 3

Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0

Wellholedepth units: Not Reported

Welldepth units: ft Wellholedepth: Not Reported

Construction date: 19220101 Welldepth: 445

Aquifer type: Not Reported

Formation type: 500-foot Sand (Memphis Aquifer)

Aquifername: Mississippi embayment aquifer system

Vert coord refsys: NGVD29 Countrycode: US

Vertcollection method: Interpolated from topographic map

Vert accmeasure units: feet

Vert measure units: feet Vertacc measure val: 2.5

Horiz coord refsys: NAD83 Vert measure val: 210.00

Horiz Collection method: Interpolated from map

Horiz Acc measure: 5 Horiz Acc measure units: seconds

GEOCHECK VERSION 2.1

STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
TC3600478.1w Page 3 of 6

Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0

Wellholedepth units: Not Reported

Welldepth units: ft Wellholedepth: Not Reported

Construction date: Not Reported Welldepth: 125

Aquifer type: Not Reported

Formation type: Not Reported

Aquifername: Not Reported

Vert coord refsys: Not Reported Countrycode: US

Vertcollection method: Not Reported

Vert accmeasure units: Not Reported

Vert measure units: Not Reported Vertacc measure val: Not Reported

Horiz coord refsys: NAD83 Vert measure val: Not Reported

Horiz Collection method: Interpolated from map

Horiz Acc measure: 10 Horiz Acc measure units: seconds

Longitude: -90.2070393 Sourcemap scale: 24000

Contrib drainagearea units: Not Reported Latitude: 35.0995365

Drainagearea Units: Not Reported Contrib drainagearea: Not Reported

Huc code: 08020203 Drainagearea value: Not Reported

Monloc desc: 56548

Monloc type: Well

Monloc name: 06N08E35AA1

Monloc Identifier: AR008-350558090122501

Formal name: USGS Arkansas Water Science Center

Org. Identifier: USGS-AR

Map ID: 5

Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0

Wellholedepth units: Not Reported

Welldepth units: ft Wellholedepth: Not Reported

Construction date: Not Reported Welldepth: 75

Aquifer type: Not Reported

Formation type: Quaternary Alluvium

Aquifername: Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer

Vert coord refsys: Not Reported Countrycode: US

Vertcollection method: Not Reported

Vert accmeasure units: Not Reported

Vert measure units: Not Reported Vertacc measure val: Not Reported

Horiz coord refsys: NAD83 Vert measure val: Not Reported

Horiz Collection method: Interpolated from map

Horiz Acc measure: 10 Horiz Acc measure units: seconds

Longitude: -90.2028726 Sourcemap scale: 24000

Contrib drainagearea units: Not Reported Latitude: 35.1012031

Drainagearea Units: Not Reported Contrib drainagearea: Not Reported

Huc code: 08020203 Drainagearea value: Not Reported

Monloc desc: 57379

Monloc type: Well

Monloc name: 05N08E03DB1

Monloc Identifier: AR008-350604090121001

Formal name: USGS Arkansas Water Science Center

Org. Identifier: USGS-AR

GEOCHECK VERSION 2.1

STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
TC3600478.1w Page 4 of 6

Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0

Wellholedepth units: Not Reported

Welldepth units: ft Wellholedepth: Not Reported

Construction date: Not Reported Welldepth: 125

Aquifer type: Not Reported

Formation type: Not Reported

Aquifername: Not Reported

Vert coord refsys: Not Reported Countrycode: US

Vertcollection method: Not Reported

Vert accmeasure units: Not Reported

Vert measure units: Not Reported Vertacc measure val: Not Reported

Horiz coord refsys: NAD83 Vert measure val: Not Reported

Horiz Collection method: Interpolated from map

Horiz Acc measure: 10 Horiz Acc measure units: seconds

Longitude: -90.2078727 Sourcemap scale: 24000

Contrib drainagearea units: Not Reported Latitude: 35.0923145

Drainagearea Units: Not Reported Contrib drainagearea: Not Reported

Huc code: 08020203 Drainagearea value: Not Reported

Monloc desc: 56549

Monloc type: Well

Monloc name: 06N08E35DA1

Monloc Identifier: AR008-350532090122801

Formal name: USGS Arkansas Water Science Center

Org. Identifier: USGS-AR

Map ID: 6

Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0

Wellholedepth units: Not Reported

Welldepth units: ft Wellholedepth: Not Reported

Construction date: Not Reported Welldepth: 125

Aquifer type: Not Reported

Formation type: Quaternary Alluvium

Aquifername: Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer

Vert coord refsys: Not Reported Countrycode: US

Vertcollection method: Not Reported

Vert accmeasure units: Not Reported

Vert measure units: Not Reported Vertacc measure val: Not Reported

Horiz coord refsys: NAD83 Vert measure val: Not Reported

Horiz Collection method: Interpolated from map

Horiz Acc measure: 1 Horiz Acc measure units: seconds

Longitude: -90.2070393 Sourcemap scale: 24000

Contrib drainagearea units: Not Reported Latitude: 35.0995365

Drainagearea Units: Not Reported Contrib drainagearea: Not Reported

Huc code: 08020203 Drainagearea value: Not Reported

Monloc desc: 13759 BOLLINGER BROS

Monloc type: Well

Monloc name: 06N08E35AA2

Monloc Identifier: AR008-350558090122502

Formal name: USGS Arkansas Water Science Center

Org. Identifier: USGS-AR

Map ID: 5

GEOCHECK VERSION 2.1

STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
TC3600478.1w Page 5 of 6

Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0

Wellholedepth units: Not Reported

Welldepth units: ft Wellholedepth: Not Reported

Construction date: Not Reported Welldepth: 110

Aquifer type: Not Reported

Formation type: Quaternary Alluvium

Aquifername: Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer

Vert coord refsys: Not Reported Countrycode: US

Vertcollection method: Not Reported

Vert accmeasure units: Not Reported

Vert measure units: Not Reported Vertacc measure val: Not Reported

Horiz coord refsys: NAD83 Vert measure val: Not Reported

Horiz Collection method: Interpolated from map

Horiz Acc measure: 1 Horiz Acc measure units: seconds

Longitude: -90.2075949 Sourcemap scale: 24000

Contrib drainagearea units: Not Reported Latitude: 35.0887035

Drainagearea Units: Not Reported Contrib drainagearea: Not Reported

Huc code: 08020203 Drainagearea value: Not Reported

Monloc desc: 9834 MILLER FARMS

Monloc type: Well

Monloc name: 05N08E10AD1

Monloc Identifier: AR008-350519090122701

Formal name: USGS Arkansas Water Science Center

Org. Identifier: USGS-AR

Map ID: 7

Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0

Wellholedepth units: Not Reported

Welldepth units: ft Wellholedepth: Not Reported

Construction date: Not Reported Welldepth: 125

Aquifer type: Not Reported

Formation type: Quaternary Alluvium

Aquifername: Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer

Vert coord refsys: Not Reported Countrycode: US

Vertcollection method: Not Reported

Vert accmeasure units: Not Reported

Vert measure units: Not Reported Vertacc measure val: Not Reported

Horiz coord refsys: NAD83 Vert measure val: Not Reported

Horiz Collection method: Interpolated from map

Horiz Acc measure: 1 Horiz Acc measure units: seconds

Longitude: -90.2078727 Sourcemap scale: 24000

Contrib drainagearea units: Not Reported Latitude: 35.0923145

Drainagearea Units: Not Reported Contrib drainagearea: Not Reported

Huc code: 08020203 Drainagearea value: Not Reported

Monloc desc: 13759 BOLLINGER BROS

Monloc type: Well

Monloc name: 06N08E35DA2

Monloc Identifier: AR008-350532090122802

Formal name: USGS Arkansas Water Science Center

Org. Identifier: USGS-AR

Map ID: 6

GEOCHECK VERSION 2.1

STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
TC3600478.1w Page 6 of 6

Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0

Wellholedepth units: Not Reported

Welldepth units: ft Wellholedepth: Not Reported

Construction date: Not Reported Welldepth: 100

Aquifer type: Not Reported

Formation type: Quaternary Alluvium

Aquifername: Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer

Vert coord refsys: Not Reported Countrycode: US

Vertcollection method: Not Reported

Vert accmeasure units: Not Reported

Vert measure units: Not Reported Vertacc measure val: Not Reported

Horiz coord refsys: NAD83 Vert measure val: Not Reported

Horiz Collection method: Interpolated from map

Horiz Acc measure: 1 Horiz Acc measure units: seconds

Longitude: -90.2167618 Sourcemap scale: 24000

Contrib drainagearea units: Not Reported Latitude: 35.0825926

Drainagearea Units: Not Reported Contrib drainagearea: Not Reported

Huc code: 08020203 Drainagearea value: Not Reported

Monloc desc: 9834 MILLER FARMS

Monloc type: Well

Monloc name: 05N08E02BD1

Monloc Identifier: AR008-350457090130001

Formal name: USGS Arkansas Water Science Center

Org. Identifier: USGS-AR

Map ID: 8

GEOCHECK VERSION 2.1

STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
PWS: Public Water Systems

Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water

Telephone: 202-564-3750

Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at

least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources.

PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data

Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water

Telephone: 202-564-3750

Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after

August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).

State Database: AR Radon 

Source: Department of Health

Telephone: 501-661-2301

Radon Test Results

Area Radon Information

Source: USGS

Telephone: 703-356-4020

The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey.

The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at

private sources such as universities and research institutions.

EPA Radon Zones

Source: EPA

Telephone: 703-356-4020

Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor

radon levels.

USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS)

This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface

water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater.

State Wetlands Data: Wetlands, Swamps, or Marshes

Source: Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies, University of Arkansas

Telephone: 605-594-6933

Arkansas Community Public Water Systems

Source: Health Department

Telephone: 501-661-2623

Oil and Gas Well Database

Source: Arkansas Geographic Information Office

Telephone: 501-682-2929

Oil and gas well locations.

STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION

© 2010 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection

and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject

to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.

ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT WELL RECORDS SEARCHED